In the recent case of Prosser v British Airways Plc  EW Misc B13 (CC), DJ Andrew Barcello considered an unusual claim under art. 17 of the Montreal Convention (and one which has generated publicity in the press). In summary, the claimant said that he had suffered personal injuries as a result of being forced to sit at an awkward angle over the course of a long-haul flight by a very large passenger “encroaching” into his seating area.
This blog post sets out the law on “accidents” under the Convention and looks at how this odd case may fit into the liability framework provided by the authorities.
Continue reading The Montreal Convention and “Accidents”
Two recent County Court decisions (Mead v British Airways Plc (Unreported) Manchester County Court, 15 January 2018 and McKendry v British Airways Plc (Unreported) Liverpool County Court, 7 June 2018) have come to identical conclusions that personal injury claims under the Montreal Convention do not engage the EL/PL Pre-action Protocol. The result is that these claims were deemed to fall outside the fixed costs provisions of CPR Part 45.
In summary, DJ Moss and DJ Baldwin (the latter sitting as a Regional Costs Judge) considered that Convention claims were ‘sui generis’ such that they did not arise out of ‘a breach of a statutory or common law duty of care’ for the purposes of the Protocol threshold criteria in para. 1.1(18).
DJ Baldwin also noted that the new Package Travel Protocol (considered in detail here) specifically excluded Athens and Montreal Convention claims, which supported the proposition that such claims were properly excluded from the low value fixed costs regime.
Copies of the judgments can be found on Gordon Exall’s Civil Litigation Brief blog.
In Anderson v British Airways (Unreported) 7 December 2017, Bury St Edmunds County Court, Aliyah Akram of 12 King’s Bench Walk, instructed by Jaime Padron of Slater & Gordon, appeared for the claimant in a case considering the application of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999.
Mr Anderson was a passenger on a British Airways flight from Cairo to London Heathrow. As he was disembarking via an airbridge he slipped and fell to the floor. He alleged that his fall had been caused by a small puddle of water on the floor.
Mr Anderson brought his claim under Article 17 of the Convention, which provides that:
“The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”
British Airways denied that the floor had been wet and argued that, even if it had been, Mr Anderson had not suffered an accident within the meaning of the Convention. Continue reading Slips and Trips under the Montreal Convention 1999 – a recent example
In this blog post, Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Pel-Air Aviation Pty v Casey, a case that has important ramifications for cases involving a psychiatric injury brought under the Montreal Convention. Max previously considered in detail the issues that arise in claims in this area in a previous blog post here. Continue reading Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd v Casey  NSWCA 32 – Montreal Convention, Psychiatric Injury
This article is by Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The article considers the Montreal Convention: the regime governing the liability of air carriers to passengers in international carriage. The Convention is a well-worn route for passengers who have been injured aboard an aeroplane. Max considers the recourse available for claimants who have sustained psychiatric harm. Continue reading The Montreal Convention and Psychiatric Harm