Airline court ruling paves way for '£4 billion of compensation claims'


Updated on 16 July 2014 | 4 Comments

Thomson Airways has lost its appeal against a six-year-old compensation claim, paving the way for more passengers to receive payouts.

Thomson Airways, the airline of the package holiday company, has lost another appeal against a passenger who successfully claimed for a delay nearly six years after the event.

A judge in the Court of Appeal ruled that European regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights, which allows claims up to six years later, over-rode the Montreal Convention. The latter limits them to two years. He and his partner are in line to receive €1,200 in compensation.

Mr Dawson was delayed for eight hours flying from Gatwick to the Caribbean in December 2006 due to a shortage of airline crew. A county court had already ruled in his favour in July 2013. He initially made his claim following a European Court of Justice judgment in October 2012 that confirmed the six-year rule was valid.

His legal team contended that numerous instances of the European Court of Justice saying that regulation 261 “falls outside the Montreal Convention” was binding in English law.

Compare credit cards that are free to use overseas

Warning of higher costs for flying

Despite being refused leave to appeal, Thomson has already said it will be appealing to the Supreme Court. In a statement, it warned that if the verdict is upheld it will lead to higher air fares.

It said: “We believe that it is reasonable to expect that those who perceive they have suffered a real loss as a result of an unfortunate delay should be able to make their claim within two years. We also continue to believe that the law stipulates this and we are therefore surprised by today's judgment.

“If unchallenged, this judgment could have a significant impact on the entire airline industry and specifically upon the price that all air travellers would need to pay for their flights. We therefore confirm that it is our intention to seek an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Mr Dawson’s lawyers Bott & Co estimate that it could cost the aviation industry £4 billion in backdated compensation claims. Thomson has reportedly refused to payout compensation on claims for flights taken more than two years ago while the case has gone on.

It’s the second huge blow for airlines in a matter of weeks after the Court of Appeal also ruled that Jet2 could not cite aircraft mechanical failure as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ to avoid paying compensation.

If you have been delayed and think you're entitled to compensation, have a read of How to claim compensation for delayed and cancelled flights. However, with both recent cases potentially heading to the Supreme Court airlines may delay dealing with claims until there is a final ruling.

Get a travel insurance quote

More on travel:

How to get a cheap flight

How to get a bargain hotel room

Lost luggage: your rights

The best credit cards to use on your travels

Comments


Be the first to comment

Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature

Copyright © lovemoney.com All rights reserved.

 

loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with Firm Reference Number (FRN): 479153.

loveMONEY.com is a company registered in England & Wales (Company Number: 7406028) with its registered address at First Floor Ridgeland House, 15 Carfax, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DY, United Kingdom. loveMONEY.com Limited operates under the trading name of loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited. We operate as a credit broker for consumer credit and do not lend directly. Our company maintains relationships with various affiliates and lenders, which we may promote within our editorial content in emails and on featured partner pages through affiliate links. Please note, that we may receive commission payments from some of the product and service providers featured on our website. In line with Consumer Duty regulations, we assess our partners to ensure they offer fair value, are transparent, and cater to the needs of all customers, including vulnerable groups. We continuously review our practices to ensure compliance with these standards. While we make every effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of our editorial content, users should independently verify information with their chosen product or service provider. This can be done by reviewing the product landing page information and the terms and conditions associated with the product. If you are uncertain whether a product is suitable, we strongly recommend seeking advice from a regulated independent financial advisor before applying for the products.