Archive for the 'carriage by air' Category

Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v British Airways plc – WLR Daily

Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v British Airways plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1284; [2010] WLR (D) 294

“For a case to fall within CPR r 19.6, a claimant who had brought a representative action on behalf of the claimant and other representative claimants had to show at all stages of the proceedings that the interest of the claimant and all potential represented claimants was same.”

WLR Daily, 19th November 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Kibris Turk Hava Yollari and another) v Secretary of State for Transport – WLR Daily

Regina (Kibris Turk Hava Yollari and another) v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 1093; [2010] WLR (D) 247

“The Secretary of State for Transport was entitled to refuse to grant operating permits to a Turkish airline and travel agent to allow them to operate scheduled and chartered flights between the United Kingdom and northern Cyprus.”

WLR Daily, 13th October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Sturgeon and others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Case C-402/07); Böck and another v Air France SA (Case C-432/07) – WLR Daily

Sturgeon and others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Case C-402/07); Böck and another v Air France SA (Case C-432/07) [2009] WLR (D) 338

“Airline passengers whose flights were delayed by more than three hours were entitled to compensation.”

WLR Daily, 20th November 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd – Times Law Reports

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd

Court of Appeal

“A hot-air balloon was an aircraft governed by the Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929, as scheduled to the Carriage by Air Act, 1961 and a passenger in it had to bring an action for personal injuries within the two-year period in article 29 of Schedule 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order (SI 1967 No 480).”

The Times, 24th March 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Barclay v British Airways plc – Times Law Reports

Barclay v British Airways plc

Court of Appeal

“A passenger slipping on a plastic strip embedded in the floor of an aircraft was not an accident since there was no distinct event which was not part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft and which had happened independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger.”

The Times, 4th March 2009 

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 from the date of publication.

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA – Times Law Reports

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA Case C-549/07

Court of Justice of the European Communities

“A technical problem in an aircraft which led to the cancellation of a flight did not constitute a sufficiently extraordinary circumstance to justify the carrier refusing to pay compensation to passengers unless the problem stemmed from events which, by their nature or origin, were not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and were beyond its actual control.”

The Times, 16th February 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd – WLR Daily

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 12; [2009] WLR (D) 14

Giving a purposive construction to Sch 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, a hot-air balloon was an aircraft, within the meaning of art 1, and the person flying in it was a passenger of the aircraft, within the meaning of art 17, whether he paid for his flight or not.”

WLR Daily, 21st January 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia—Linee Aeree Italiane SpA – WLR Daily

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia—Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07); WLR (D) 3

“A technical problem such as an engine defect that came to light during a routine check on an aircraft and resulted in cancellation of a flight did not normally justify the carrier in refusing to pay compensation to passengers on the ground that the flight had been cancelled owing to ‘extraordinary circumstances’.”

WLR Daily, 7th January 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Barclay v British Airways plc – WLR Daily

Barclay v British Airways plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1419; [2008] WLR (D) 412

“Where a passenger slipped on a standard fitting plastic strip embedded in the floor of an aircraft in its normal state and sustained bodily injury, there was no ‘accident’ within the meaning of art 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 since there was no distinct event which was not part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft and which had happened independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger.”

WLR Daily, 5th January 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd (in Liquidation) – Times Law Reports

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd (in Liquidation)

Queen’s Bench Division

“A hot-air balloon could be categorised as an aircraft within the meaning of the Non International Rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order (SI 1967 No 480). The rules provided the sole cause of action and remedy against a carrier available to a claimant in respect of injuries caused by it to him.”

The Times, 23rd April 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.


December 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Categories