‘Class action firm Hausfeld has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for allowing its independence to be compromised in the conduct of a massive group claim.’
Legal Futures, 5th April 2022
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Amazon UK has been found guilty and fined £65,000 for breaking aviation safety laws after repeatedly trying to send dangerous goods by airmail.’
The Guardian, 23rd September 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Amazon has been found guilty of shipping dangerous goods by air. The items included lithium-ion batteries and flammable aerosols, which were flown in and out of the UK between January 2014 and June 2015.’
The Guardian, 20th September 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 845; [2014] WLR (D) 279
‘The limitation period applicable to a claim brought in England for compensation for cancellation or delay under articles 5 and 7 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 was the six-year period prescribed by section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The court could not award damages for distress and injury to feelings caused to a disabled passenger during flight in breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 (implemented in domestic law by the Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007) since such an award was precluded by article 29 of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999 (“the Montreal Convention”), as adopted in the European Union by Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97, as amended by article 3(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 889/2002, (“the Montreal Regulation”), and pursuant to the European Communities Act 1972, as amended.’
WLR Daily, 5th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Passengers whose flights were delayed were entitled, under certain circumstances, to compensation pursuant to article 5 to 7 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91.”
WLR Daily, 23rd October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v British Airways plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1284; [2010] WLR (D) 294
“For a case to fall within CPR r 19.6, a claimant who had brought a representative action on behalf of the claimant and other representative claimants had to show at all stages of the proceedings that the interest of the claimant and all potential represented claimants was same.”
WLR Daily, 19th November 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The Secretary of State for Transport was entitled to refuse to grant operating permits to a Turkish airline and travel agent to allow them to operate scheduled and chartered flights between the United Kingdom and northern Cyprus.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Airline passengers whose flights were delayed by more than three hours were entitled to compensation.”
WLR Daily, 20th November 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd
Court of Appeal
“A hot-air balloon was an aircraft governed by the Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929, as scheduled to the Carriage by Air Act, 1961 and a passenger in it had to bring an action for personal injuries within the two-year period in article 29 of Schedule 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order (SI 1967 No 480).”
The Times, 24th March 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal
“A passenger slipping on a plastic strip embedded in the floor of an aircraft was not an accident since there was no distinct event which was not part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft and which had happened independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger.”
The Times, 4th March 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 from the date of publication.
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA Case C-549/07
Court of Justice of the European Communities
“A technical problem in an aircraft which led to the cancellation of a flight did not constitute a sufficiently extraordinary circumstance to justify the carrier refusing to pay compensation to passengers unless the problem stemmed from events which, by their nature or origin, were not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and were beyond its actual control.”
The Times, 16th February 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 12; [2009] WLR (D) 14
“Giving a purposive construction to Sch 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, a hot-air balloon was an aircraft, within the meaning of art 1, and the person flying in it was a passenger of the aircraft, within the meaning of art 17, whether he paid for his flight or not.”
WLR Daily, 21st January 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia—Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07); WLR (D) 3
“A technical problem such as an engine defect that came to light during a routine check on an aircraft and resulted in cancellation of a flight did not normally justify the carrier in refusing to pay compensation to passengers on the ground that the flight had been cancelled owing to ‘extraordinary circumstances’.”
WLR Daily, 7th January 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Barclay v British Airways plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1419; [2008] WLR (D) 412
“Where a passenger slipped on a standard fitting plastic strip embedded in the floor of an aircraft in its normal state and sustained bodily injury, there was no ‘accident’ within the meaning of art 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 since there was no distinct event which was not part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft and which had happened independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger.”
WLR Daily, 5th January 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd (in Liquidation)
Queen’s Bench Division
“A hot-air balloon could be categorised as an aircraft within the meaning of the Non International Rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order (SI 1967 No 480). The rules provided the sole cause of action and remedy against a carrier available to a claimant in respect of injuries caused by it to him.”
The Times, 23rd April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2024