There were a number of landmark court rulings which substantially altered the flight delay compensation parameters. Such delayed flight compensation clarified passenger doubts and pushed things for the better.
Dawson versus Thomson Airways Limited
This case took place at the Cambridge County Court delayed flight compensation and Honourable Judge Yelton oversaw the proceedings. The Judge was requested to offer his judgement on the length of time a passenger has before he/she lost his/her advantage of staking a claim for delayed flight compensation. According to Thomson Airways, the carrier, passengers must claim in less than two years and as per Welsh and English laws, the court should apply time restriction permitted by Montreal Convention.
According to the Claimant, however, this two year restriction cannot be imposed in such cases and a passenger has about six years as per the Section 9(1) of Limitation Act 1980. This claim put forwarded by the flier was accepted by the Judge and it was ruled that the concerned Montreal Convention is completely different in case of claims as per the EC Regulation 261/2004. The time limit therefore is six years.
Huzar versus Jet2.com
When it came to the Huzar case, an appeal was made by the claimant against District Judge Dignan’s decision, which stated that the passenger was not eligible for compensation as extraordinary circumstances caused the delay.
One Mr. Huzar was all set to fly to Manchester from Malaga on October 26, 2011. The flight, however, was very much delayed as the aircraft developed technical faults when it was on its way towards Malaga that evening. The defect was noticed by the crew. Post landing, Jet2 made arrangements for a spare valve which was subsequently fitted. The problem, however, remained. It was soon found out that a wiring defect subsisted in fuel valve circuit. This can only be rectified by specialist engineers.
According to District Judge Dignan, the airline company had taken all measures possible when it comes to airport servicing. He also observed that since the concerned part remains covered and consequently not inspected daily, it will not be possible for Jet2 to inspect that component prior to take-off. The Judge therefore ruled that this kind of fault was beyond Jet2’s control and thereby extraordinary.
In the appeal, the claimant approached Honour Judge Platt at the Manchester County Court. This new judge gave the opinion that the moment a problem is identified, the carrier must resolve that specific issue. He also ruled that extraordinary circumstances are not inclusive of technical problems.
Jager versus EasyJet Airline Company
In this case of flight delay compensation, Jager was the claimant and she was flying the Gatwick to Nice route. There was a three hour delay in her flight due to the cascade effect of another flight diverted earlier in the day due to bad weather over Milan. According to the Claimant, the existing regulations state that bad weather can only be included in extraordinary circumstance if that specific flight’s operations were affected. Since that particular EasyJet flight was not affected, compensation was given.