header-logo header-logo

05 November 2014
Issue: 7629 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Jet2.com could cost £bns

The Supreme Court has scotched travel industry hopes of avoiding a huge payout over flight delays.

The court refused applications by Jet2.com and Thomson to appeal earlier decisions that found them liable to pay compensation (Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791 and Thomson Airways Ltd v Dawson [2014] EWCA Civ 845).

The result could cost the airlines billions of pounds, according to David Bott, senior partner at Bott & Co, which acted for the Jet2.com passengers. He said an estimated 2.36 million passengers per year in England and Wales could benefit from Jet2.com, equivalent to about £876m in compensation, while Thomson had opened up an estimated £3.89bn in historic flight compensation.

Jet2.com stemmed from a 27-hour delay on a flight from Malaga to Manchester in 2011. Thomson resulted from a six and a half hour delay on Christmas Day 2006 at Gatwick Airport.

Bott, whose firm has thousands of clients with claims on hold, said: “The Supreme Court’s decision has provided total clarity in the law, which will benefit both airlines and passengers going forward.”

In Jet2.com the Court of Appeal held that an unforeseeable technical problem (a wiring defect) did not amount to “extraordinary circumstances” for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. Thomson centred on the issue of whether the relevant limitation period was two years or six years. The Court of Appeal held six years.

A Thomson Airways spokesperson says: “We are surprised and disappointed to note the decision of the Supreme Court as we believe our position is sound in law.”

Issue: 7629 / 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