More to the story?

Uproar in the British press over the $35,000 awarded to a impossible-to-satisfy couple for “loss of enjoyment” on a cruise:

The Milners, from Leeds, sailed from Southampton on the ship’s 15-week maiden voyage in January last year and hit heavy seas in the Bay of Biscay when the floor began to flex loudly.

They were offered an alternative cabin for the New York to Los Angeles leg then upgraded to a ‘penthouse suite’, complete with a butler. But the Milners, in their late 60s, ‘could not unpack’ and relax as they didn’t know when the couple who booked the suite would be joining the cruise, the court heard.

They returned to their original cabin only to face the noise once more and were offered a mid-range suite which they rejected as it ‘ didn’t feel right’.

Disgusted, the Milners disembarked in Hawaii (where they spent 6 weeks in a luxury hotel) and received a full refund from Cunard for the part of the cruise they missed, nearly $80,000.

Surely, a full refund isn’t the standard response to disgruntled passengers. Were the complaining couple perceived as “more trouble than they’re worth”? Or did Cunard recognize their culpability? If so, will the large judgment diminish travel companies’ willingness to refund dissatisfied customers?