A woman who claimed her £88,000 stay in a Barbados villa was ruined - partly because the butler was a "buffoon" and the dining table was too big - today won £25,000 damages in the high court.

Janet Keppel-Palmer had asked the court for a £44,000 refund plus £16,500 to reflect the distress suffered during her 32-day stay in the £4m beachfront property near Bridgetown.

Her first family holiday for 10 years "was not to the level one would expect when you have spent all that on the rent", she told Mr Justice Gage in London.

Ms Keppel-Palmer, of Richmond, Surrey, claimed the £4m Barbados villa was at the mercy of the weather because of a leaky roof and poor-quality glassless windows, and that it had only one phone.

She also told the high court that the villa's Indonesian-style furniture "more suited to a beach hut", that its dining table was too big and swimming pool too small.

The butler was a "buffoon", the CD player did not work properly, and the drinking "glasses" were plastic, the court heard.

Describing Mrs Keppel-Palmer, of Richmond Hill, Surrey, as an "impressive and honest witness", the judge ruled that the award should be paid by Royal Westmoreland Villas, a company incorporated in Barbados.

"I take into account that on any view this was a very expensive holiday and she was entitled to expect very high standards. As I have found, what she got fell beneath these very high standards."

He awarded £22,000 to represent a refund of 25% of the rental, plus £3,000 for loss of enjoyment.

"I take into account that this was designed to be a very luxurious holiday coming after her family's difficult year. This, however, is not a case of a family unused to holidays.

"To be able to afford the cost of such a holiday indicates a degree of financial resources from which I infer she and her family are used to some expensive things in life - including holidays."

The family stayed at the villa in December 1999 to January 2000 while their house was being rebuilt.

She claimed that Royal Westmoreland Villas was in breach of their holiday contract or supplied misleading information contrary to the 1992 package travel, package holidays and package tours regulations.

The judge ruled that another defendant, Exsus Travel, of Heddon Street, central London, was not liable.

Alan Saggerson, defending, said that the stay in the villa was not a package holiday. He said: "To say that this family only got half of what they bargained for is - like some elements of the evidence - an exaggeration. They got a good deal more than that."

Mrs Keppel-Palmer will receive total damages of £29,760, with interest,. As she left court, she told reporters she was "delighted" but refused to comment further.

Her solicitor, Mark Milkovics, told the Press Association: "Holiday companies are in the business of selling dreams. When holiday companies make assertions regarding the quality of the facilities and services to be provided, regardless of the price paid, the consumer is entitled to rely on those representations being correct.

"This holiday was sold to my client on the basis of being one of the most desirable rental villas in the world and the height of luxury, with various representations being made as to the high standard of accommodation and facilities available.

"On the basis of those representations made, my client paid a substantial sum for the holiday. My client did not receive the holiday that had been promised, which is clearly shown by the evidence accepted by the judge.

"My client is satisfied that justice has been done, and that her position in the matter has been vindicated."