Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd & Ors

The Montreal Convention is exclusive within the field it governs. A passenger cannot recover damages under domestic or European disability legislation for injury sustained during international carriage by air where the Convention provides the applicable liability regime, even if the claim is framed as discrimination or breach of statutory duty. The Convention does not govern every aspect of the passenger–airline relationship. Measures operating before boarding or after disembarkation, and standardised assistance operating at an earlier stage, may coexist with it. But legislation must be construed consistently with the Convention. Effective, proportionate and dissuasive enforcement of disability rights does not require a private damages remedy for injury to feelings.

Two conjoined appeals concerned disabled passengers whose promised seating arrangements were not provided by airlines. Christopher Stott appealed against a Manchester County Court decision which declared that Thomas Cook had breached the Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 but dismissed his damages claim by reference to the Montreal Convention. Tony Hook appealed against the striking out of his damages claim against British Airways; Supperstone J dismissed that appeal in [2011] EWHC 379.

The appellants relied on Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 and the Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007. The airlines relied on the Montreal Convention, as incorporated into European and domestic law. The central issue was whether compensation for injury to feelings fell within the Convention’s exclusive regime or within a complementary legal space outside it.

1. Appeals dismissed. The passengers’ claims for compensation for injury to feelings could not succeed because the real injuries were sustained when the Montreal Convention governed their situations. Its exclusivity both defined and limited their rights and remedies.
2. The Convention is exclusive “in those cases with which it deals”. Within its temporal and substantive domain, a passenger has no additional common-law, statutory or other domestic remedy for damage caused by the carrier, even where the claim is framed as discrimination or breach of statutory duty. The court treated Sidhu v British Airways PLC as clear authority for that principle and considered it equally applicable to the Montreal Convention, although the earlier authorities concerned the Warsaw Convention.
3. The domain is not unlimited. The Convention does not prevent legislation addressing matters operating at an earlier stage, such as standardised assistance for delay, cancellation or denied boarding, or matters occurring before boarding or after disembarkation. The distinction is between measures operating outside the Convention’s liability regime and individual claims for damages for injury sustained within it.
4. Article 16 of the Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 emphasises effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. Read with Recitals (15) and (18), it does not require a compensatory remedy for injury to feelings. Criminal sanctions, administrative enforcement and complaints machinery can satisfy the required enforcement structure without conflicting with the Convention.
5. The disability instruments must, so far as possible, be construed consistently with the Montreal Convention. The Charter’s recognition of disability rights does not reorder the relevant normative provisions or alter the Convention’s scope. Article 12, concerning lost or damaged wheelchairs and mobility equipment, likewise does not displace Convention exclusivity.
6. The court rejected the suggested “second strand” or “sea change” in European protective legislation as a basis for altering the Convention’s construction. The appeals were dismissed for the reasons given by Lord Justice Maurice Kay. Lord Justice Sullivan and Dame Janet Smith agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In the conjoined appeals, the court dismissed both appeals: [2012] EWCA Civ 66.
2. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Supperstone J dismissed Mr Hook’s appeal against the striking out of his damages claim: [2011] EWHC 379.
3. Manchester County Court: The court granted Mr Stott a declaration that Thomas Cook had breached the EC Disability Regulation but dismissed his claim for damages. The judgment citation was not stated in the judgment.