header-logo header-logo

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

Unfit to fly?

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll