header-logo header-logo

19 January 2016
Issue: 7683 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Airlines must compensate for lightning strike delays

When lightning strikes cause delays, airlines may have to compensate passengers, the High Court has held, in a case that potentially could lead to 54,000 individual claims.

In Evans v Monarch Airlines Ltd at Reading County Court on 14 January (unreported), Judge Melissa Clarke held that lightning strikes are not one of the “extraordinary circumstances” that excuse airlines from paying flight delay compensation. She awarded the passengers €600 (£450) each for a five hour flight delay.

Under European Flight Delay Regulation EC 261/2004, passengers delayed by three hours or more in the last six years can claim up to €600 compensation, as long as the delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances. The regulation does not define the term, "extraordinary circumstances".

Bott & Co Solicitors, who acted for Michael Evans, say the ruling could benefit 54,000 delayed passengers, totalling £17.6m in flight delay compensation. This calculation is based on Civil Aviation Authority statistics that 13.5 million passengers in the past six years were delayed for three hours or more, 80% can potentially lead to claims, and 0.5% of delays are caused by lightning.

While the decision is not legally binding, the firm points out that it “is the lead case on the issue of lightning strikes. As such, the decision will be highly persuasive in flight delay cases involving lightning in English and Welsh courts”.

Kevin Clarke, litigation executive at Bott & Co, says: “Bad weather is not the airline’s fault, but the law says it is their responsibility.”

Issue: 7683 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll