header-logo header-logo

Carriage by air—Hot air balloon—Regime governing pleasure flight in hot air balloon

30 January 2009
Issue: 7354 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , Damages , Personal injury , In Court
printer mail-detail

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 12, [2009] All ER (D) 137 (Jan)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Mummery, Dyson and Jacob LJJ, 21 January 2009

In finding that a pleasure flight in a hot air balloon was subject to Sch 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, (SI 1967/480), the Court of Appeal has held that the balloon was an “aircraft”, that there had been “carriage” of the “claimant” and that the claimant was a “passenger” for the purposes of the 1967 Order.

Charles Davey (instructed by Graham Dawson & Co) for the claimant. Robert Lawson (instructed by Bruce, Lance & Co) for the defendant.

In August 2003, the claimant went on a hot air balloon flight organised by the defendant. The arrangement was that a vehicle would follow the balloon with a view to collecting the balloon and passengers from wherever they landed.
The claimant suffered injuries during a sudden landing.

In August 2006,

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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll