header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 September 2024 / Anna Medvinskaia , Jack Brady
Issue: 8084 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , In Court , Consumer
printer mail-detail

Pilot sickness: a cure for compensation claims?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
188094
Anna Medvinskaia & Jack Brady analyse the Supreme Court’s decision in Lipton v BA Cityflyer Ltd
  • Pilot sickness is not an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ for the purposes of Art 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004.
  • This article considers the application of retained EU law, in particular the existence of accrued EU law rights and the way in which those rights are carried forward post-Brexit.
  • It shows how under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, UK courts are not bound by post-Brexit CJEU judgments and cannot refer questions to the CJEU.

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (Regulation 261) on the rights of passengers travelling by air is one of the most litigated pieces of legislation to come out of the EU. A key issue that the courts continue to grapple with is the application of Art 5(3) of Regulation 261, which exempts operating carriers from the obligation to pay compensation to passengers if they can prove that the cancellation or long delay was caused by ‘extraordinary circumstances which

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll