This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
An appeal court ruling over compensation for a 27-hour flight delay could open the floodgates for thousands of air passengers claiming for holdups caused by technical difficulties.
An appeal court ruling over compensation for a 27-hour flight delay could open the floodgates for thousands of air passengers claiming for holdups caused by technical difficulties.
Lawyers said almost 20 million passengers who experienced delays or cancellations over the past six years could be eligible to bring a claim after an appeal court judge ruled that Jet2.com should compensate Ronald Huzar for the delay he experienced on a flight from Malaga to Manchester in 2011.
Lawyers said almost 20m passengers who experienced delays or cancellations over the past six years could be eligible to bring a claim after an appeal court judge ruled that Jet2.com should compensate Ronald Huzar for the delay he experienced on a flight from Malaga to Manchester in 2011.
The airline said there had been a technical problem that meant it did not have to pay compensation under rules that cover "extraordinary circumstances". Typically, the term refers to poor weather or political unrest and Huzar's lawyers argued that it could not be applied in this case.
The airline said there had been a technical problem that meant it did not have to pay compensation under rules that cover "extraordinary circumstances". Typically, the term refers to poor weather or political unrest.
Huzar took his case to Manchester county court, which ruled in his favour. Jet2.com lodged an appeal, taking the case all the way to the high court, saying it was rejecting the claim due to "ambiguity" in EU regulations. The appeal was refused on Wednesday and Huzar was awarded £526 in compensation.
Huzar took his case to Manchester county court, which ruled in his favour. Jet2.com lodged an appeal, taking the case all the way to the high court. The appeal was refused and Huzar was yesterday awarded £526 compensation.
David Bott, an aviation lawyer at Bott & Co, who represented Huzar, said around 90% of the 15,000 flight delay claims on its books have been refused because of a technical defect.
David Bott, an aviation lawyer at Bott & Co, who represented Huzar, said around 90% of the 15,000 flight delay claims on its books have been refused because of technical defects.
He said: "The judgment states that technical problems, such as with the wiring on Huzar's flight, may be unforeseeable, but are ultimately caused by an event inherent in the running of the aircraft, and cannot therefore be considered to be an extraordinary circumstance. Airlines should no longer ignore their obligations when dealing with people who have suffered a delayed flight due to technical problems."
Jet2.com said the judgment was disappointing and could, if unchallenged, "have a significant impact on the entire airline industry".
However, Jet2.com said the judgment was disappointing and could, if unchallenged, "have a significant impact on the entire airline industry".
A spokesman said it would take the dispute to the supreme court. "We will continue to seek clarity and consistency by appealing directly to a higher court." He added that the airline regretted any inconvenience to passengers.
A spokesman said: "The judge noted that the issue 'is not without some difficulty' and as such we are taking the dispute to the supreme court.
Flight delay claims are subject to the UK's statute of limitations, which allows claims to date back six years. The law for flight delay compensation, clarified in October 2012, applies to any flight leaving an EU airport and any flight into Europe on an EU–based airline.
"The European national enforcement bodies have agreed that unexpected technical defects, such as the one in this case, are outside of the control of airlines, and would therefore be considered extraordinary for the purposes of compensation. The ongoing European review of EC261/2004 also recognises this. Today's ruling will only cause further confusion for passengers and airlines, which is why we will continue to seek clarity and consistency by appealing directly to a higher court."
Guy Anker from MoneySavingExpert.com said: "We haven't got all the ins and outs, but anyone that was previously rejected should re-submit their claim to get the ball rolling.."
He added that the airline regretted any inconvenience to passengers.
Which? executive director, Richard Lloyd, said: "This ruling shows that airlines cannot avoid ducking their responsibilities by claiming that routine technical problems are extraordinary circumstances. "
Flight delay claims are subject to the UK's statute of limitations, which allows claims to date back six years. The law for flight delay compensation was clarified in October 2012, and applies to any flight leaving an EU airport and any flight into Europe on an EU–based airline.
Guy Anker from MoneySavingExpert.com said: "This is great news for anyone whose claim has been put on hold or was rejected. We haven't got all the ins and outs, but anyone that was previously rejected should re-submit their claim to get the ball rolling. Too many people have been fobbed off for too long, so we now need the airlines and regulator to make sure their houses are in order to deal with claims quickly."
A poll of more than 3,000 people carried out by MoneySavingExpert.com found Jet2, Thomson and Ryanair were the least likely travel firms to pay out on consumers' claims, with respectively only 2%, 8% and 10% of claims being upheld in the consumer's favour.
Which? executive director, Richard Lloyd, said: "This ruling shows that airlines cannot avoid ducking their responsibilities by claiming that routine technical problems are extraordinary circumstances. Airlines must be transparent about the causes of delay and ensure that consumers have sufficient information to exercise their rights."
