The claimant passenger complained that he had not been compensated as required when his flight was delayed. The airline now appealed against a decision that a mechanical fault in the aircraft did not amount to exceptional circumstances so as to excuse the airline form paying compensation.
Held: The appeal failed. There was no explicit definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the regulation, but some assistance was given. Furthermore, the European Court had in the case of Wallentin-Hermann stated that mechanical failures were part of the business of a carrier for which it provided, for example routines of maintenance.
Laws, Elias, Gloster LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 791
Bailii
Regulation (EC) 261/2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH ECJ 2-Jul-2009
Opinion (Joined cases) – Air transport – Distinction between the notions of ‘delay’ and ‘cancellation’ . .
Cited – Finnair Oyj v Lassooy ECJ 4-Oct-2012
ECJ Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding – Concept of ‘denied boarding’ – Exclusion from characterisation as ‘denied boarding’ – Cancellation . .
Applied – Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane SpA ECJ 22-Dec-2008
ECJ Carriage by air Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 Article 5 – Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of flights Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation Cancellation due to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Consumer, European
Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526424