The British Supreme Court has ruled that cancelling a flight because of pilot illness did not amount to “extraordinary circumstance”, and that €250 in compensation should be paid.

In Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd, the court heard that a couple claimed  compensation over the cancellation of their BA Cityflyer flight to Milan.

Cityflyer refused to pay, on the ground that the pilot falling ill was an extraordinary circumstance under Regulation 261, the EU flight-compensation regulation.

The claim was initially dismissed at Portsmouth County Court, then on appeal by a circuit judge at Winchester County Court, but upheld by the Court of Appeal.

BA Cityflyer then appealed to the British Supreme Court, which was asked what was meant by “extraordinary circumstances” and whether the pilot’s illness counted as such. 

The court was also asked what effect, if any, Brexit had on the Lipton’s ability to recover compensation under Regulation 261.

Ruling for the couple, the Supreme Court judges found (10 July) that the Court of Appeal fell into error when holding that the amended version of Regulation 261 and the Liptons’ claim is part of ‘retained EU law’.

Basic principle

The ruling stated “This is contrary to a basic principle of the rule of law, which parliament must be taken to respect, according to which it is the law in place at the time the material events occur which applies, rather than some different version introduced at a later date.

“To analyse the position as the Court of Appeal did would produce strange results and would undermine the important value of finality in litigation.”

Dismissing the appeal, the judgment said: “The non-attendance of the captain due to illness was an inherent part of Cityflyer’s activity and operations as an air carrier and could in no way be categorised as extraordinary.”