header-logo header-logo

Unfit to fly?

01 February 2007 / Marianne Butler
Issue: 7258 / Categories: Features , EU , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Marianne Butler reviews the airlines’ defence to rebut compensation claims for cancelled flights

Regulation 261/2004/EC (the regulation) provides common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers who are denied boarding or experience cancellation or long delay on any flight out of the EU and on certain flights into the EU.

Compensation for cancelled flights is fixed depending on the length of the flight. However, the airlines are afforded a complete defence where the cancellation is caused by “extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken” (see the Art 5(3) defence).

HARBORD

An NLJ article last year (see 156 NLJ 7233, p 1124) investigated what redress airline passengers could expect under the regulation and examined Harbord v Thomas Cook Airlines, 30 January 2006, unreported. In Harbord a passenger obtained £840 compensation where a technical fault on one of the airline’s fleet had led to his flight’s cancellation.  The judge held that an airline could only rely on the Art 5(3) defence where it could show that

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

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

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
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
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll