A “disabled family” who were turned away from a theme park picnic area have lost their bid to win damages for discrimination.

The case was brought on behalf of 13-year-old Melissa Edwards, who has Down’s syndrome with autism and challenging behaviour, while her sister, Isla, seven, has cystic fibrosis and father Paul is blind.

Mr Edwards and his wife, Belinda, from Kilmarnock, Scotland, took their four children to a restaurant called The Coach House during a week-long holiday at Flamingo Land, near Malton, in July 2010.

They sat down at a table in the picnic area, beyond the restaurant's outside seating, but were told, when ordering, that they would have to move into the outdoor sitting area, as staff were not allowed to serve beyond that because of health and safety considerations.

Mrs Edwards explained that this would not be suitable because of the family’s needs and said she would carry the food out. When her husband joined her, there was an altercation, ending with the manager returning their money and asking them to leave.

When the claim was first heard, Mrs Edwards told the judge that they did their own risk assessment when they took Melissa out and knew how to manage her.

“When sat at a table with family on either side of her she is happy and if we have to move her everything falls apart. When she cries or laughs she does not know when to stop and it is difficult for everybody.

“We have to interpret what might happen. The manager I spoke to obviously did not understand this but we were not given the opportunity to explain. I do not wish to stand at a bar and justify our family. We like to go out but have to do it in a way that is safe to us and to her and the public.”

The judge, who described them as “truly a disabled family”, awarded Melissa a total of £4,000 against Flamingo Land Ltd but that decision was later successfully appealed against, Melissa's lawyers then took the case to the Court of Appeal in London but yesterday three judges dismissed the action on the basis that the provisions of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act did not apply to the facts in her case as there was a critical distinction between a restaurant and a takeaway for the purpose of the relevant sections of the Act.

Flamingo Land had argued that there was no discrimination because the restaurant did not and would not have served meals to – or allowed meals to be taken by – any persons in the picnic area.