Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd

Standardised compensation under article 7 of EC Regulation No. 261/2004 for a flight arriving three or more hours late is redress for inconvenience. It falls outside the scope of the Montreal Convention of 1999, rather than constituting damages for delay under that Convention. Article 35’s two-year time bar therefore does not apply. The applicable limitation period is determined by national law.

Where the issue concerns the relationship between an EU regulation and the Convention within the EU legal order, a domestic court must apply the relevant decisions of the European Court, including reasoning necessary to understand their rulings. It cannot apply a domestic interpretation of the Convention so as to bring the Regulation’s remedy back within the Convention.

The respondent’s flight from Gatwick to the Dominican Republic arrived more than six hours late because of crew shortages caused by sickness. He claimed the fixed sum of €600 under article 7 of EC Regulation No. 261/2004.

Proceedings began shortly before expiry of the six-year period under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. The airline contended that article 35 of the Montreal Convention of 1999 instead extinguished the claim after two years. The Cambridge County Court rejected that contention and entered judgment for the passenger. The central issue on the airline’s appeal was whether the Convention’s limitation period governed a Regulation 261 compensation claim for delay.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court unanimously upheld the County Court’s judgment for the passenger.
2. Montreal Convention of 1999 is an exhaustive code only for matters within its substantive scope. Sidhu v British Airways Plc [1997] A.C 430 remained the domestic-law explanation of the Convention’s exclusive character, but it did not resolve whether the EU-created article 7 remedy fell within that scope.
3. The relationship between EC Regulation No. 261/2004 and the Convention was a question of EU law. Under section 3(1) of the European Communities Act 1972, the court had to determine it in accordance with relevant European Court decisions. That obligation extended to the reasoning needed to understand the rulings, not merely their formal terms.
4. The European Court’s decisions established that loss of time from flight delay is an inconvenience for which Regulation 261 provides standardised and immediate redress. It is not damage occasioned by delay within article 19, and the article 7 obligation operates outside article 29. Accordingly, article 35 did not apply to the claim.
5. Once the Convention time bar was excluded, limitation was governed by national law. The claim was brought within the applicable six-year period under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. The airline’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the airline’s appeal: [2014] EWCA Civ 845.
• Cambridge County Court — His Honour Judge Yelton gave judgment for the passenger for £1,488.73. No citation was stated.