Regulation 261/2004: Flight Delay And Connecting Flights

On 12 October 2017, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the joined cases of Gahan v Emirates and Buckley and ors v Emirates [2017] EWCA Civ 1530. In both cases the passengers suffered delays at a connecting point and, consequently, on arrival at their final destination. They claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), as applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") in Sturgeon v Condor [2009]. The Liverpool County Court, which heard both cases, came to a different conclusion in each case.

The principal issues on appeal were whether delays suffered by the passengers during the second leg of their respective journeys were compensable under the Regulation, whether there was jurisdiction under the Regulation and whether the right to compensation under the Regulation is, insofar as non-Community air carriers are concerned, excluded by virtue of the exclusive liability regime established under the Montreal Convention 1999 (the "Convention"). The UK Civil Aviation Authority (the "CAA") and International Air Transport Association ("IATA") intervened in the proceedings, respectively in support of the passengers' and Emirates' positions.

Facts

Miss Thea Gahan made a single booking with Emirates to travel from Manchester to Bangkok via Dubai. Her flight from Manchester to Dubai (flight 1) was delayed so that it arrived 3 hours and 56 minutes late in Dubai, causing her to miss her connecting flight from Dubai to Bangkok (flight 2) and arrive more than 13 hours after her originally scheduled arrival time. Miss Gahan sought compensation under the Regulation.

Similarly, the Buckley family made a single booking with Emirates to travel from Manchester to Sydney via Dubai. The first flight (flight 1) to Dubai was delayed on arrival by 2 hours and 4 minutes, with the result that the Buckleys were automatically rebooked on to another flight the following day (flight 2) arriving in Sydney some 16 and a half hours after their originally scheduled arrival time. The Buckleys brought a claim against Emirates for compensation under the Regulation.

The first instance decisions

In Gahan, the County Court, following the judgment in Sanghvi v Cathay Pacific Airways [2012] ("Sanghvi"), took the view that compensation was only payable for flight 1, but not for flight 2, which was to be viewed separately from flight 1 and, as such, did not fall within the scope of the Regulation.

In Buckley, the court came to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT