Kanaka Durga Chelluri v Air India Ltd

For Regulation 261/2004, a journey involving several legs is treated as one flight for the territorial gateway where the legs were booked as a single unit. The relevant departure is the initial departure point, regardless of where a later leg is delayed or whether the journey ends outside the EU/UK. The principle does not extend to a return journey. Passenger-protection and equal-treatment objectives cannot create a remedy contrary to the Regulation’s wording or binding authority. The Court of Appeal should depart from retained CJEU case law only with great caution and a principled basis. Applying [2018] Bus LR 1366 and subsequent authorities, the court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant booked one ticket from Kansas City to Bengaluru comprising four legs. The third leg, from Heathrow to Mumbai and operated by Air India, was delayed by approximately 48 hours. The appellant claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004.

District Judge Sanderson allowed the claim, treating the Air India flights as separate from the Delta flights. HHJ Berkley allowed Air India’s appeal and dismissed the claim, holding that the overall Kansas City-to-Bengaluru journey was decisive under Wegener. The Court of Appeal considered whether Wegener compelled that result and whether it should depart from that authority.

Disposition. Coulson LJ delivered the leading judgment. Stuart-Smith LJ and Vos MR agreed. Both grounds of appeal were rejected.

1. Construction of Wegener. Wegener concerned jurisdiction under Article 3(1)(a), not compensation under Article 7. It could not be read down to mean that any flight departing from an EU/UK airport was independently covered. Its reasoning depended on treating a single booking as a whole.
2. Territorial gateway. Under Article 3(1)(a), a multi-leg flight is treated as one whole transport operation when booked as a single unit. The relevant departure is the initial departure point. The principle does not extend to a return journey from the destination back to the original departure point, following Schenkel. Article 3(5) does not create a separate jurisdictional gateway and directs attention back to Article 3(1)(a) and (b).
3. Policy considerations. The objectives of high passenger protection and equal treatment cannot provide a remedy where the Regulation or binding authority does not permit one. The single-booking principle must operate consistently for passengers and carriers. It cannot be used by a carrier to avoid liability but by a passenger to create liability.
4. Departure from CJEU authority. There was no legislative change or new authority providing a principled basis for departing from Wegener, which had repeatedly been followed. Departure would be unnecessary and potentially have profound consequences without express legislative consideration. The relevant power must be exercised with great caution.
5. Application. The appellant’s booking was a single unit beginning in Kansas City and ending in Bengaluru. Because its initial departure was outside the EU/UK, Article 3(1)(a) did not apply, notwithstanding the delayed Heathrow leg. The amended Regulation was noted but its application to pending claims was not decided, since the amendments made no substantive difference on the parties’ case. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 December 2021, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld HHJ Berkley’s dismissal of the claim: [2021] EWCA Civ 1953.
• Portsmouth County Court: On 22 January 2021, HHJ Berkley allowed Air India’s appeal from the district judge and dismissed the claim in case F26YY457.
• Portsmouth County Court: On 9 September 2020, District Judge Sanderson allowed the appellant’s claim for flight-delay compensation.