A couple who were on a cruise ship that struck an iceberg off Antarctica have lost a claim dispute over their early return to port.

The pair took their case to the industry ombudsman after their cruise operator refunded them for the unused portion of the trip but travel insurer Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance declined their claim for the balance.

The husband had argued the primary purpose of booking the cruise was to visit Antarctica – a personal goal – so his time before that was wasted.

On day nine of the 19-day expedition from Argentina to Antarctica, the ship hit the iceberg and sustained damage, and the vessel returned for repairs.

The husband said earlier stages to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia were part of the journey to Antarctica rather than standalone destinations, and the cruise should be treated as a single trip because he would need to undertake the journey again in full to reach Antarctica.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority says although the shortening of the cruise was unforeseen and outside the couple’s control, and their primary objective was reaching Antarctica, the policy does not cover “loss of enjoyment or disappointment” when a trip does not achieve its intended purpose.

More from AFCA: Cousin not close enough to trigger death disruption payout

“Although I sympathise with the complainant’s circumstances, I am not satisfied that he has established a valid claim,” an AFCA ombudsman said.

“The policy expressly excludes cover for consequential loss of this kind. The complainant participated in, and received the benefit of, the first part of the cruise, including the accommodation, transport, meals.

“The policy does not provide cover for travel services that have already been provided and used, even if the trip is subsequently curtailed or does not reach its intended destination.”

AFCA says the contract of travel was for a multi‑destination cruise, with documents stating the voyage included “Epic Falkland Islands, South Georgia & Antarctica” in three legs of two to four days, with the rest at sea.

“The complainant undertook and derived the benefit of these other parts of the journey and reached the other cruise destinations as planned and documented on the itinerary,” the ombudsman said.

The couple’s policy covered cancellation fees, lost deposits and additional expenses when a trip is cancelled, rescheduled or cut short.

But AFCA notes the claim sought reimbursement for the portion of the cruise already taken.

See the ruling here.