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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll