Passengers in line for delays payout

The court rejected an appeal by Thomson Airways against an earlier court decision to award Dawson just under ?1,500. Thompson had argued that the claim fell outside a UK two-year time limit.

Legal experts said the Court of Appeal ruling could lead to more than 17 million passenger claims and could cost airlines more than ?6billion. Dawson’s claim was in connection with the delay of a flight from London’s Gatwick airport (to which Caribbean Airlines flies) to the Dominican Republic in December 2006.

The flight was held up by a crew shortage caused by illness. The flight eventually arrived at its destination more than six hours late.

In a statement, Dawson’s solicitors said it already has hundreds of litigated cases, which have been stayed pending the outcome of this one. It added that it also has thousands of other clients ready to issue proceedings.

Dawson had sought to recover 1800 euros from Thomson, payable as compensation under European Union regulations which do not stipulate a time limit for compensation to be claimed, leaving that up to national governments. In the UK, the courts have interpreted this to mean six years.

The airline argued, however, that a separate regulation known as the Montreal Convention applied. The Convention, which is also law in the UK, sets a two-year time limit for compensation claims.

As a result, the legal argument centred on whether Dawson’s claim had to be brought within the two-year Montreal Convention limit or the six-year UK statute of limitations. Dawson began proceedings in December 2012, just before the six-year period elapsed. Thomson accepted it would have been liable to pay but argued that his claim was out of time.

In a second court case over flight delays in a week, Ronald Huzar, whose flight arrived 27 hours late, also won a compensation fight with an airline which said the delay was caused by “extraordinary circumstances”.

Huzar said he was entitled to compensation under EU regulations after suffering “no little inconvenience” when his flight from Malaga to Manchester left a day late. But Jet2.com bosses claimed an exemption, saying the problem which caused the delay — a technical fault on an airliner — was unforeseeable and, therefore, amounted to an extraordinary circumstance.

These two court rulings in favour of passengers could amount to a compensation bonanza as big as the one faced by banks after they mis-sold mortgage Payment Protection Insurance. But both companies said they will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Commenting on his case, Dawson said, “My motivation for making my claim was purely the way I felt I had been treated by the airline. Had Thomson treated me better, I would not have brought the claim…I am satisfied that the outcome of my case and the Huzar case should put a stop to this kind of behaviour towards the passenger.”

Huzar himself commented, “It’s a huge relief but I could not let this go. After losing the case at the small claims court, I thought about dropping it as I knew the costs would build up quickly if I was to appeal. But it was eating away at me and I knew I had to keep going.”

A Thomson Airways spokeswoman said, “If unchallenged, these judgments could have a significant impact on the entire airline industry and specifically upon the price all air travellers will have to pay.”

How much of all this will affect TT and the Caribbean will depend to a large extent on the action taken by delayed passengers.

They should not pay too much attention to the Thomson statement regarding the effect of their action on ticket prices.

A study in Brussels concluded that even if every entitled passenger claims for delays, it would add a mere ?2.50 to the cost of each flight.