Compensation opened up after court turns down airline appeals
Guest Writers are not employed, compensated or governed by TD, opinions and statements are from the specific writer directly
Delayed flight cases worth billions of pounds in compensations have been opened up after the Supreme Court turned down appeals from Jet2 and Thomson.
The Court of Appeal judgements in Huzar vs Jet2 means airlines must pay compensation when delays are caused by technical problems, because they are not considered an ‘extraordinary circumstance’.
The ruling on the Dawson v Thomson case means consumers in England and Wales can claim for compensation for up to six years after the incident.
More than 2.36 million passengers a year in England and Wales could benefit from the decision, amounting to more than £4.7 billion in compensation.
Compensation cases had previously been put on hold until the decision was made, with airlines now having to pay out the costs if passengers make a claim.
David Bott, senior partner at Bott & Co said: “This is a landmark day not just for Mr Huzar and Mr Dawson but for passengers everywhere. Two journeys which started with a delay have now finished, nearly eight years later in Mr Dawson’s case.
“Bott & Co has thousands of clients whose claims have been on hold pending today’s decisions. We will now be writing to the airlines, asking them to acknowledge the judgments, recognise their obligations and deal with these claims as promptly as possible. If you’ve previously submitted a claim to the airline but have been turned down on the grounds of a technical defect or because your claim is more than two years old, we recommend you resubmit your claim.”
Huzar issued a claim after a 27-hour delay caused by a wiring defect on a Jet2 flight from Malaga to Manchester in October 2011, while Dawson faced a 6.5 hour delay in 2006 from Gatwick to Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.
In a statement Thomson Airways 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 are surprised and disappointed to note the decision of the Supreme Court as we believe our position is sound in law. We will now review this position based on the court’s decision.”
Comments are closed.