Key Facts
- •Mr and Mrs Lipton's flight from Milan to London was cancelled due to the pilot's illness.
- •The flight was cancelled shortly before departure, and a replacement pilot could not be found in time.
- •The Liptons arrived 2.5 hours later than scheduled.
- •They claimed €250 compensation under Regulation (EC) 261/2004.
- •Cityflyer refused to pay, claiming the pilot's illness constituted an 'extraordinary circumstance'.
- •The UK left the EU between the flight cancellation and the Court of Appeal hearing.
- •The case involved two legal issues: the definition of 'extraordinary circumstances' and the effect of Brexit on the Liptons' claim.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'extraordinary circumstances' in Regulation (EC) 261/2004.
Regulation (EC) 261/2004, Article 5(3); CJEU case law (Wallentin-Hermann, Sturgeon, Pešková, Moens, etc.)
Effect of Brexit on accrued EU law rights.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, sections 2, 3, 4, 6; Interpretation Act 1978, section 16; Withdrawal Agreement
Presumption against retrospective effect of legislation.
Common law principles of statutory interpretation
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The pilot's illness did not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' under Regulation (EC) 261/2004; the Liptons' claim was valid despite Brexit and should be assessed under the unamended version of the Regulation.
The amended version of Regulation 261/2004 (post-Brexit) does not apply.
Accrued rights under EU law before Brexit are considered 'retained EU law' under the Withdrawal Act 2018 and remain governed by the pre-Brexit version of the Regulation; the Court of Appeal erred in applying the amended version.