The Court was asked whether a person may recover damages for discomfort and injury to feelings caused by a breach of the 2007 Regulations, which implement EC Regulation No. 1107/2006. The disabled passenger claimant alleged failure by the defendant air carrier to make reasonable efforts to provide his seating needs.
Held: Such a claim was precluded by the Montreal Convention. The Court declined to refer the Case to the ECJ. The meanings of the Regulations was not in issue, and nor was there said to be incompatibility with the Montreal Convention, and nor did it involve a question of European Law.
Lord Toulson said: ‘To summarise, this case is not about the interpretation or application of a European Regulation, and it does not in truth involve a question of European law, notwithstanding that the Montreal Convention has effect through the Montreal Regulation. The question at issue is whether the claim is outside the substantive scope and/or temporal scope of the Montreal Convention, and that depends entirely on the proper interpretation of the scope of that Convention. The governing principles are those of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. If the issue concerned the compatibility of the Regulation with the Convention (as in Nelson) it would indeed involve a question of European law, but no such question arises and there is no basis for supposing that the Montreal Convention should be given a different ‘European’ meaning from its meaning as an international convention. On the contrary, it was the acknowledged purpose of the Regulation to ensure full alignment between the Convention as an international instrument and community law.’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 15, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 849, [2014] 2 All ER 461, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 207, [2014] 3 CMLR 7, [2014] Eq LR 287, [2014] 2 WLR 521, [2014] AC 1347, [2014] WLR(D) 111
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary
Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007, EC Regulation No. 1107/2006
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd and Another CA 7-Feb-2012
The claimants were disabled and, despite promises, had not had their seating needs met when flying with the defendants. . .
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 – Regina, ex parte International Air Transport Association, European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport ECJ 10-Jan-2006
ECJ Carriage by air – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5, 6 and 7 -Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Validity – . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd CA 19-Jun-2014
The claimant’s flight had been delayed for six hours. The airline said that the claim having been made outside the two year period applicable under the Montreal convention, no compensation was payable.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘We . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Consumer, Limitation
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.521995