NATALIA AKULININA v IFLY S.A.

Jurisdiction under Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention 1999 requires proof of all three conditions at the time of the accident: the passenger’s principal and permanent residence in the forum; the carrier’s operation of passenger services to or from that State on its own or another carrier’s aircraft pursuant to a commercial agreement; and the carrier’s conduct of its passenger-carriage business from qualifying premises there. A branding, marketing, agency, interline or loosely connected business relationship is insufficient without evidence of a joint carriage service and the carrier’s operation to or from the forum. At the jurisdiction stage, the claimant must provide a plausible evidential basis. The court should decide disputed facts reliably where possible. Jurisdiction under Article 33(1) likewise requires a proper evidential basis for the carrier’s domicile.

The claim arose from the deaths of two passengers in a helicopter crash in Greece. The claimants, dependants of one passenger who lived permanently in England, brought claims under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999. The Greek operator challenged the English court’s jurisdiction under Articles 33(1) and 33(2).

The claimants relied principally on an alleged commercial relationship between the operator and the Aman group, involving private-jet travel from England and helicopter travel in Greece. Alternatively, they argued that the operator might be domiciled in London through links with the iGroup. The issues were whether the evidential threshold for jurisdiction was met and whether the alleged arrangements satisfied Article 33.

1. Application granted. The court had no jurisdiction under Article 33(1) or Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention 1999.
2. Article 33(2) imposed three cumulative conditions, each assessed at the time of the accident: the passenger’s principal and permanent residence in the United Kingdom; operation by the carrier of passenger services to or from the United Kingdom on its own or another carrier’s aircraft pursuant to a commercial agreement; and conduct of the carrier’s passenger-carriage business from qualifying premises in the United Kingdom.
3. The alleged relationship between Ifly and Aman did not satisfy those requirements. The evidence did not establish a commercial agreement for joint passenger-carriage services. It did not show that Ifly operated any United Kingdom service on an Aman aircraft or conducted its business from Aman premises in London. Branding on helicopters, a preferred-destination relationship, liaison, marketing, agency, interline arrangements or separate contractual journeys were insufficient.
4. The court applied the jurisdictional approach in Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA [2018] UKSC 34, as explained in Kaefer Aislamentos SA de CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV [2019] 1 WLR 3514. The claimants had to provide a plausible evidential basis. The court could reliably conclude that Ifly had the better argument. Even if it could not, the alleged services were unsupported speculation and did not meet the alternative threshold.
5. The absence of a valid operating licence for an alleged “other carrier” was not, by itself, an additional requirement under Article 33. The Convention’s concept of carrier was autonomous and could include a contracting carrier. That issue did not need final determination because Article 33 was not otherwise satisfied.
6. The alternative domicile case was speculative. The evidence showed that Ifly was based and managed in Greece and did not establish that its corporate authority or control was in London. No adjournment or further disclosure order was sought, and the court declined to adjourn the jurisdiction challenge.