Frustration of Contract

The test is that there is a "supervening event" which occurs without the default of either party and for which the contract makes no sufficient provision, so I'd say yes it applies, but, remember the Supreme Court has previously held that the "circumstances alleged to occasion frustration should be strictly scrutinised and the doctrine is not to be lightly applied" as part of the 7 step test to be applied, I think all steps would be ticked off easily enough.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What's the upshot if a contract is considered frustrated? Money stays with whichever party has it?

In several head line cases this was the outcome, however I would be wary of considering it fixed.

General rule of EU law is that the travel operator is in a much better position to assess risk and use their insurance to reimburse the passenger.