Supreme Court Ruling Against Cancelled BA Flight Could Affect Thousands of Claims

Undated handout photo issued by Irwin Mitchell Solicitors of Kenneth and Linda Lipton. (PA)

A Supreme Court decision has ruled that two passengers, whose British Airways (BA) flight got cancelled due to airline staff illness, are entitled to compensation.

The ruling has the “potential to affect tens of thousands of claims” made annually, the judgment said.

The case was brought against BA Cityflyer, an arm of British Airways, by Kenneth and Linda Lipton, from Westerham in Kent.

Their flight from Milan to London in January 2018 was cancelled because the pilot fell ill and didn’t report for work.

The airline couldn’t find a replacement and the Liptons were rebooked on another flight. As a result, their arrival to London was delayed by 2.5 hours.

The couple claimed against Cityflyer for about £220 in compensation. The company refused to pay on the ground that the pilot falling ill was an extraordinary circumstance.

Airlines have a defence if they can show that the cancellation was the result of “extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.”

The claim was dismissed by two courts before the Court of Appeal ruled in the couple’s favour. Cityflyer then appealed to the Supreme Court, which published its decision on Wednesday.

The court unanimously dismissed the airline’s appeal and ruled that “the pilot falling ill did not amount to an extraordinary circumstance.”

The judgment said that staff illness, just like the wear and tear of an aircraft, is an inherent part of airlines’ operations. It is irrelevant whether the pilot fell ill while off-duty, the statement said.

“It is significant that pilots are subject to rules outside their working hours, such as a ban on drinking in the lead-up to a flight,” the document said.

Although the sum at stake is small, the Supreme Court decision has the potential to affect tens of thousands of claims made annually under the applicable legislation.

Speaking about the court ruling, Oliver Studdert, lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, representing the couple, said it’s not uncommon for airlines to refuse to pay out based on what they consider an extraordinary circumstance.

“However, this judgment unequivocally confirms that staff illness isn’t an extraordinary circumstance, and that where this is the reason for a delay or cancellation, the passenger has a right to compensation,” Mr. Studdert said.

EU Regulation

The Supreme Court decision “also addresses important questions regarding the status of accrued EU law rights,” the judgment said.

Britain was still part of the European Union on the date of the flight, which means the EU Regulation 261 still applied in the case. The regulation offers protection to airline passengers, seeking to claim compensation based on various factors.

By the time, the case was heard by the Court of Appeal, the UK had left the EU and the legislation had changed.

“The Supreme Court concluded that the Liptons’ entitlement to compensation on the day their flight was cancelled is enforceable post-Brexit and forms part of ‘retained EU law,’” said Mr. Studdert.

‘Prepared to Fight’

In a joint statement, issued by their law firm, Kenneth and Linda Lipton welcomed the ruling, calling it a “win.”

“We see this as not just a win for ourselves but a victory for people who are prepared to fight for common sense and justice against corporate behemoths who have access to every resource.

“We never wanted to be in this position but felt we had little choice but to continue our legal case given the stance of the carrier all the way through this.

“Their insistence to continue this battle to the highest court in the land has now met with the correct conclusion and our significantly smaller, but no less wiley team has succeeded against all odds,” the couple said in a statement.

A spokesperson for BA said, “We are disappointed with this decision and respect the judgment of the court.”

PA Media contributed to this report.