Campbell v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd (Rev 1)

Campbell v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd (Rev 1)

The Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 does not govern the provision of airport and check-in services at non-EU airports; therefore, paragraph 33(2) of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 does not exclude the application of section 29 to such services. The national law applies, and Thomas Cook is liable for discrimination.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Janice Campbell; Defendant/appellant: Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Equality Act 2010, Application of EU Regulation 1107/2006, Jurisdictional Scope of Anti Discrimination Duties, Remedies for Discrimination in Air Travel
Equality Law Disability Discrimination Aviation Law Interpretation of Equality Act 2010 Application of EU Regulation 1107/2006 Jurisdictional Scope of Anti Discrimination Duties Remedies for Discrimination in Air Travel

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janice Campbell

Claimant/respondent

Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does paragraph 33(2) of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 exclude the application of section 29 of the Act to airport services at non-EU airports?
  2. 2 Is the Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 comprehensive so as to preclude national remedies for discrimination at non-EU airports?

Ratio Decidendi

The Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 does not govern the provision of airport and check-in services at non-EU airports; therefore, paragraph 33(2) of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 does not exclude the application of section 29 to such services. The national law applies, and Thomas Cook is liable for discrimination.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment of the County Court upheld; Thomas Cook remains liable to pay damages assessed at £7,500 to Mrs Campbell.