The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has welcomed the Supreme Court ruling that airline crew sickness does not constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ and passengers who suffer a flight delay as a result are entitled to compensation.
The CAA said it expects every carrier which has refused claims on the grounds of staff illness “to now pay the compensation owed” and said it “will monitor how airlines comply closely”.
The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Lipton vs BA Cityflyer found Mr and Mrs Lipton were entitled to compensation for a delay to their flight from Milan to London in January 2018.
More: Best and worst UK flight delay rankings released
Supreme Court rules carrier must compensate for delay due to pilot sickness
The BA Cityflyer flight they were booked on was cancelled due to the pilot falling ill and they took an alternative flight which arrived two hours and 36 minutes later than their original scheduled arrival.
The Liptons’ claim was rejected at both County Court and High Court hearings, but they won in the Court of Appeal leading BA Cityflyer – a regional subsidiary of British Airways – to appeal to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in February.
The Supreme Court judges unanimously dismissed the airline’s appeal, although they found fault with the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
Airlines are not liable to compensate passengers if they can show a delay or cancellation was the result of “extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.
However, the Court held that a pilot failing to turn up for work due to illness was not ‘extraordinary’ since staff illness is commonplace for any business.
CAA consumer head Anna Bowles welcomed the ruling, saying: “This provides clarity to passengers and means airlines are no longer able to refuse compensation claims by arguing that pilot illness counts as an extraordinary circumstance.
“Given this judgment, it’s our view that delays and cancellations caused by staff illness – whether they are a pilot or a member of crew – do not count as an extraordinary circumstance.”
Bowles said: “We expect every airline that has refused claims due to staff illness, or placed them on hold pending the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court, to now pay the compensation owed to passengers.
“We also expect airlines to apply our interpretation to existing claims and future disruptions.”
The CAA said: “We will monitor how airlines comply with this closely.”
It noted that European and UK Courts have previously determined that technical faults and industrial action by airline employees do not constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’.
UK air passengers’ rights are set out in EC Regulation 261 which applies to all flights departing from or arriving into the UK or EU and operated by a UK or EU airline.
The Supreme Court judges argued in their judgment: “Staff illness, and the need to accommodate such illness on a daily basis, is a commonplace for any business.”
They went on: “Wear and tear of the aircraft and its component parts is not extraordinary. The wear and tear on people, manifesting itself in illness, should not be regarded as any different.”