Claire Smyth v British Airways PLC & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2173 (KB)
Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd
10 July 2024
[2024] UKSC 24
Supreme Court
A couple's flight was cancelled because the pilot was sick. They sued for compensation. The court said the airline had to pay because the pilot being sick isn't an unusual event. Even though Britain left the European Union after the flight was cancelled, the rules from when the flight happened still applied, not the new rules.
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.