The case was based around Mr and Mrs Lipton having their flight to Milan from London cancelled in January 2018 due to a pilot suddenly falling ill at late notice.
As the couple waited at the airport, the pilot was off duty and at home when he unexpectedly fell ill.
The couple were placed on a different flight, which arrived two hours and 36 minutes later than they were originally meant to.
Following the incident, the couple made a compensation claim for €250 (about £220), which was rejected by BA CityFlyer (a subsidiary of British Airways).
The airline defended the decision and claimed the pilot’s illness represented an “extraordinary circumstance [that] could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.
Wellness and wellbeing holidays: Travel insurance is essential for your peace of mind
Out of the pandemic lockdowns, there’s a greater emphasis on wellbeing and wellness, with
Sponsored by Post Office
This stance was defended at the Portsmouth County Court and later on appeal at Winchester County Court, but Mr and Mrs Lipton escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, which judged the case in their favour.
After the judgment, British Airways requested the case be judged by the Supreme Court. The determining factor as to which party would win the case hinged on the definition of “extraordinary circumstances” for a crew member of an airline.
The court defined extraordinary circumstances as: “Where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.”
It therefore found that a staff member falling ill did not meet that remit, which could have huge knock-on effects for thousands of customers down the line.
The law firm representing Mr and Mrs Lipton estimates it has that many clients set to cash in on the outcome, some of whom have been waiting over five years for an answer, according to the business.
‘Important step for protecting air passengers’ rights’
Coby Benson, solicitor at Bott and Co, said: “This decision is an important step forward in protecting air passengers’ rights. Our clients have been incredibly patient, and we are thrilled that justice has been served. Airlines must now take their responsibilities seriously and ensure they are adequately staffed to avoid such disruptions, and if such disruptions occur, compensate passengers appropriately.
“This ruling highlights the need to hold airlines accountable, ensuring passengers get the support and compensation they deserve. Passengers affected by crew sickness on their flights can contact Bott and Co to determine their eligibility for compensation and begin the claims process on a no-win, no-fee basis.”
When contacted by YourMoney.com, British Airways said in a statement: “We are disappointed with this decision and respect the judgment of the court.”
It added: “We have continued to defend the claim as we genuinely believed it was fair and reasonable to consider last-minute illness to be an extraordinary circumstance [that] is outside of an airline’s control and [that] is particularly impactful at airports in other countries, where we do not have a base and additional standby crew resource.
“We will continue to honour our obligations under EU261 [EU air passenger rights]. The case was previously found in our favour twice; at the initial county court hearing, and at the first appeal.”
If your flight is delayed or cancelled, your rights are covered by The Denied Boarding Regulation (261/2004 EC), as referenced in the Supreme Court ruling.
‘CityFlyer bears the burden of proof over illness’
The Supreme Court’s judgment read: “CityFlyer bears the burden of proving that the captain’s non-attendance due to illness fell within the concept of extraordinary circumstances. The meaning of the phrase must be interpreted in light of the purpose of Regulation 261, which is to ensure a high level of protection for consumers. The basic principles regarding the application of the defence are well-settled. The principal question is whether the relevant event is inherent in the normal activity of the carrier.
“The Supreme Court unanimously holds that the pilot’s non-attendance due to illness was an inherent part of CityFlyer’s activity as an air carrier and cannot be categorised as extraordinary. That phrase must be given its usual meaning, which denotes something out of the ordinary.”
It continued: “Staff illness is commonplace for any business. Just as the wear and tear of an aircraft’s physical components is considered an inherent part of an air carrier’s activity, so too is managing illness of staff. An event can be external to a carrier but still inherent to its operations.
“It is irrelevant whether staff fall ill whilst they are off-duty; their attendance or non-attendance for work is an inherent part of the carrier’s operating system. 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.
“Regulation 261 is intended to provide a standardised level of compensation for passengers [that] does not require complex analysis. Requiring an enquiry into why, when and how a staff member became ill would be contrary to the intended operation of the scheme.”
