Povey v Qantas Airways Limited [2005] HCA 33

Povey v Qantas Airways Limited [2005] HCA 33

The appellant's allegations, even if proved, would not establish that an 'accident' within the meaning of Article 17 occurred. The standard flight conditions and an omission to warn of DVT risk do not amount to an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to the passenger. Accordingly, the pleaded material could not amount in law to an 'accident' under the applicable Convention, and summary judgment was properly entered for the respondents.

Parties
Appellant: Brian William Povey; First Respondent: Qantas Airways Limited; Second Respondent: British Airways Plc
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Disposition on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Carriage by Air, Air Carrier Liability, Personal Injury, Interpretation of Treaties, Summary Judgment
Aviation Law International Law Civil Procedure Carriage by Air Air Carrier Liability Personal Injury Interpretation of Treaties Summary Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian William Povey

Appellant

Qantas Airways Limited

First Respondent

British Airways Plc

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Disposition on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged failure to warn of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) risk or the flight conditions amounted to an 'accident' for the purposes of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (as modified) as implemented in Australia.
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted, striking out the appellant's claim for lack of an arguable cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's allegations, even if proved, would not establish that an 'accident' within the meaning of Article 17 occurred. The standard flight conditions and an omission to warn of DVT risk do not amount to an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to the passenger. Accordingly, the pleaded material could not amount in law to an 'accident' under the applicable Convention, and summary judgment was properly entered for the respondents.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.