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

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