Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an aircraft.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. There was nothing in the convention to indicate that the purpose of the flight, and ‘the natural and ordinary meaning of the word ‘aircraft’ is wide enough to include a passenger carrying hot air balloon. ‘ This balloon was designed for the carriage of passengers. The claimant was undoubtedly being carried in the balloon at the material time and was not himself making any contribution to the process of flying. The fact that the claimant just went for the ride and the destination was to a large extent unpredictable was immaterial to whether he was carried as a passenger. The predominant purpose of the journey was to be carried by air from the starting point to the destination point, wherever that turned out to be. The claimant did not know precisely where the destination point would be, but that did not prevent him from being carried as a passenger.
Article 29(2) does not permit the 2 year period to be suspended, interrupted or extended by reference to domestic law.
Judges:
Mummery LJ, Dyson LJ, Jacob LJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 12, Times 24-Mar-2009, [2009] WLR (D) 18, [2009] 3 WLR 351, [2009] 2 All ER 175, [2009] QB 778, [2009] 1 CLC 1, [2009] 1 QB 778, [2009] Bus LR 954, [2009] PIQR P12, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 316
Links:
Statutes:
Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 (SI 1967/480), Carriage by Air Act 1961
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Fellowes or Herd v Clyde Helicopters Ltd HL 27-Feb-1997
A Police officer being carried in a force helicopter, and operating within his own force’s area was not on a matter of international carriage, and was not subject to the restrictions on recovery of damages. The helicopter had crashed into a building . .
Cited – Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corporation HL 1989
Mr Holmes was killed when the defendant’s aircraft in which he was a passenger crashed on a domestic flight in Bangladesh. As a domestic flight, it was not international carriage. The proper law of the contract was undoubtedly Bangladeshi law. Under . .
Cited – Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd v Larnell (Insurances) Ltd CA 29-Nov-2005
The claimant investors said that their financial adviser, the defendant insolvent company, had given them negligent advice. The action was brought as a preliminary to claiming against the defendant’s insurers under the 1930 Act, in the way made . .
Cited – Disley v Levine (T/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding) CA 11-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from her instructor, after being injured as a passenger trainee pilot of a paraglider. He responded that she was out of time, since the regulations applied. His appeal was refused. The system of regulation did not mention . .
Cited – In re General Rolling Stock Co; Joint Stock Discount Company’s Claim CA 21-Jun-1872
Upon a winding up: ‘A duty and a trust are thus imposed upon the Court, to take care that the assets of the company shall be applied in discharge of its liabilities. What liabilities? All the liabilities of the company existing at the time when the . .
Cited – Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries HL 1977
Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the . .
Cited – Sidhu and Others v British Airways Plc; Abnett (Known as Sykes) v Same HL 13-Dec-1996
The claimants had been air passengers who were unlawfully detained in Kuwait, when their plane was captured whilst on the ground on the invasion of Kuwait. They sought damages for that detention.
Held: There are no exceptions to the Warsaw . .
Cited – Milor SRL and Others v British Airways Plc CA 15-Feb-1996
The Warsaw Convention allows ‘forum shopping’, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. Article 28(1) specifies the jurisdictions in which claims under the Convention may be brought. If the English Court is one of those jurisdictions, then . .
Appeal from – Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd QBD 17-Apr-2008
The claimant was injured in a hot air balloon. The defendant relied on the Rules in the Act to limit his liability to two years after the event.
Held: An internal flight in a hot air balloon was to be characterised as a journey by aircraft. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Transport, Damages
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.280068