The UK Supreme Court has recently ruled in the case Lipton and another v British Airways Cityflyer Ltd that passengers are now entitled to compensation if their flight is delayed or cancelled due to airline staff sickness.
Although the sum at stake is small, the decision has the potential to affect tens of thousands of claims which are made annually under the applicable legislation. It also addresses important questions regarding the status of accrued EU law rights.
- Background to the Appeal
The respondents, Mr and Mrs Lipton, were booked onto a flight from Milan Linate Airport to London City Airport on 30 January 2018 operated by the appellant airline, British Airways Cityflyer (hereinafter ´´British Airways´´). The flight was cancelled because the pilot did not report for work due to illness and it was not possible to find a replacement pilot. The Liptons were rebooked onto a replacement flight and landed in London just over 2.5 hours later than scheduled.
The Liptons claimed against British Airways for €250 (about £220) under Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 (“Regulation 261”). British Airways refused to pay on the ground that the pilot falling ill was an extraordinary circumstance. The Liptons’ claim was dismissed by a Deputy District Judge in the Portsmouth County Court, and on appeal by a Circuit Judge at the Winchester County Court. The Liptons then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which determined that the defence was not made out and upheld the claim.
British Airways decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Ruling of the UK Supreme Court
The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Cityflyer’s appeal. It holds that the pilot falling ill did not amount to an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Regulation 261. The Supreme Court observes that the non-attendance of the captain due to illness was an inherent part of British Airways´s activity and operations as an air carrier and could in no way be categorised as extraordinary.
The concept of ´´extraordinary circumstances´´ must be understood as something out of the ordinary. Thus, the Court considers that staff illness, and the need to accommodate such illness on a daily basis, is a commonplace for any business. If, for whatever reason, the staff are unable to attend for work as a result of something going awry during those rest periods (whether it is their fault or not), that failure to attend is not an extraordinary circumstance within article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004.
