header-logo header-logo

10 July 2014 / Rob Williams
Issue: 7614 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Up in the air

comment_dawson

Will the Dawson ruling ultimately be seen as a victory or a loss for the consumer, asks Rob Williams

Following within the space of little over a week on the heels of Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791, [2014] All ER (D) 86 (Jun), Dawson v Thomson Airways [2014] EWCA Civ 845, [2014] All ER (D) 154 (Jun) is the second Court of Appeal flight delay compensation case to go against the airlines. The issue in Dawson was whether the limitation period was two years under the Montreal Convention or six years under the Limitation Act for bringing a flight delay claim.

Mr Dawson’s flight from Gatwick to the Dominican Republic was delayed and arrived at its destination over six hours late as a result of staff shortages. Dawson brought a claim pursuant to EU Regulation No. 261/2004 for compensation for the delay he experienced. Thomson Airways accepted they would have to compensate Dawson had he brought his claim in time, but argued that the limitation period was two years

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll