header-logo header-logo

22 November 2019 / Katherine Deal KC , Asela Wijeyaratne
Issue: 7865 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Planes, blame & claims!

11891
Katherine Deal QC & Asela Wijeyaratne consider the meaning of ‘accident’ under the Montreal Convention
  • Exclusive liability regime & the requiremnt that bodily injury is suffered as a result of an ‘accident’.

In our last update we discussed recent cases under the Montreal Convention pushing the boundaries of one element of the cause of action for recovery of damages for injury under article 17(1) – the requirement that ‘bodily injury’ is suffered (‘Flying in the face of convention’, NLJ 14 June 2019, p9). Here, we examine the recent High Court decision of Labbadia v Alitalia (Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A) [2019] EWHC 2103 (Admin), which places strain on another element of the cause of action—the requirement that the bodily injury is suffered as a result of an ‘accident’.

The Montreal Convention 1999 is a multilateral treaty to which the UK is a party. The Convention applies to international carriage of passengers by aircraft. It provides (among other things) an exclusive liability regime for the death or injury to passengers.

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll