The Supreme Court is due to rule this morning on a case involving a disabled passenger who is fighting for damages from Thomas Cook.
The case follows the Court of Appeal dismissing a claim for damages from the wheelchair user.
The ruling meant that disabled passengers cannot seek compensation from an airline if they are discriminated against during a flight, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is supporting Stott’s appeal to the higher court.
Stott suffered an uncomfortable return flight from Zante in Greece to East Midlands airport in 2008, after it was claimed that Thomas Cook failed to provide for his needs, despite assuring him that he and his wife would be seated together.
Stott’s wheelchair overturned and he fell to the cabin floor as he was trying to board the aircraft from an ambulift. He was unable to help himself up and complained that staff appeared to not know how to deal with the situation, which left him feeling angry, humiliated and distressed, according to the EHRC.
As Stott is unable to move around aircraft and use the toilets, he needed special seating and always travels with his wife so she can attend to his needs.
However, despite booking and confirming seats together, Stott was told at the departure gate that he would not be sitting next to his wife. In addition to this, suitable seating was not provided.
As a result, Mrs Stott had to leave her seat a number of times during the flight, to kneel in the aisle next to her husband whenever he needed help.
The Supreme Court is due to determine whether Stott is excluded from claiming damages for breach of his EU law rights by virtue of the Montreal Convention.
The EHRC said it believes that the Montreal Convention, which covers injury, death and loss of baggage, is irrelevant to the claims of disabled travellers. It does not deal with discrimination, so should not affect disabled passengers’ rights.
A Thomas Cook spokeswoman said previously: “We take our responsibility to disabled passengers extremely seriously and offer our sincere apologies for the distress caused to Mr Stott.
“While we accept that on this rare occasion there were problems with Mr Stott’s requests, the Court of Appeal agreed with our view that no compensation was due.”