In this post, John-Paul Swoboda provides his commentary on the recent decision in Arthern v Ryanair DAC [2023] EWHC 46 (KC). When a person slips on some liquid on a floor, whether it be by a poolside, on an aeroplane, or elsewhere we call it is an accident. A slip is, by definition, unexpected. A…
Read moreThe Montreal Convention and the “fifth jurisdiction”
In Akulinina and Kondrashova -v- Ifly S.A. the High Court considered, for the first time, the jurisdiction provisions in Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention. These provisions are often referred to as providing the Convention’s “fifth jurisdiction” (being an additional basis of jurisdiction beyond the four identified in Article 33(1)). Spencer Turner considers the important…
Read moreCJEU rules on Montreal Convention coffee spillage case
In 2015, GN, a six-year-old child, was travelling on board an aircraft between Mallorca and Vienna. Her father, who was sitting next to her, was served a cup of hot coffee which, when it was placed on the tray table in front him, tipped over onto his right thigh and onto GN’s chest, causing her…
Read moreAn unusual Montreal Convention case: failure to provide water to passenger
In this blog post, Christopher Fleming of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent widely reported decision of Di Falco v Emirates (No 2) [2019] VSC 654 (15 October 2019) (available here) in which the Supreme Court of Victoria found that injuries caused by an airline’s failure to provide a passenger with water when requested…
Read moreSlips, trips, and the Montreal Convention – what’s the position?
This blog post is by Max Archer and James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk. In Labbadia v Alitalia (Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A) [2019] EWHC 2103, Margaret Obi, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, ruled on whether a slipping incident that took place as the Claimant disembarked from the Defendant’s flight was an ‘accident’…
Read moreThe Montreal Convention and “Accidents”
In the recent case of Prosser v British Airways Plc [2018] 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…
Read moreMontreal Convention Claims: Fixed Costs Do Not Apply
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…
Read moreSlips and Trips under the Montreal Convention 1999 – a recent example
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…
Read morePel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd v Casey [2017] NSWCA 32 – Montreal Convention, Psychiatric Injury
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…
Read moreThe Montreal Convention and Psychiatric Harm
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.
Read more