header-logo header-logo

Planes, blame & claims!

22 November 2019 / Katherine Deal KC , Asela Wijeyaratne
Issue: 7865 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
11891
Katherine Deal QC & Asela Wijeyaratne consider the meaning of ‘accident’ under the Montreal Convention
  • Exclusive liability regime & the requiremnt that bodily injury is suffered as a result of an ‘accident’.

In our last update we discussed recent cases under the Montreal Convention pushing the boundaries of one element of the cause of action for recovery of damages for injury under article 17(1) – the requirement that ‘bodily injury’ is suffered (‘Flying in the face of convention’, NLJ 14 June 2019, p9). Here, we examine the recent High Court decision of Labbadia v Alitalia (Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A) [2019] EWHC 2103 (Admin), which places strain on another element of the cause of action—the requirement that the bodily injury is suffered as a result of an ‘accident’.

The Montreal Convention 1999 is a multilateral treaty to which the UK is a party. The Convention applies to international carriage of passengers by aircraft. It provides (among other things) an exclusive liability regime for the death or injury to passengers.

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll