Disley v Levine (t/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding) [2001] EWCA Civ 1087 (11 July 2001)

Disley v Levine (t/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding) [2001] EWCA Civ 1087 (11 July 2001)

A tandem paraglider used for instruction is not an 'aircraft' within the meaning of the 1967 Order; the flight was not 'for reward' but was part of a course of instruction; and the claimant, as a trainee pilot under instruction, was not a 'passenger' under the Order. Therefore, the statutory regime did not apply, and the claimant retained her rights in negligence and contract.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1087
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Norma June Disley; Defendant/appellant: Marc Levine (t/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Contract, Carriage by Air, Statutory Interpretation, Personal Injury
Tort Law Contract Law Aviation Law Negligence Breach of Contract Carriage by Air Statutory Interpretation Personal Injury

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norma June Disley

Claimant/respondent

Marc Levine (t/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tandem paraglider is an 'aircraft' within the meaning of the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's carriage of the claimant was 'for reward' within the meaning of the 1967 Order and/or whether the defendant was an 'air transport undertaking'
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was a 'passenger' within the meaning of the 1967 Order when being carried in a tandem paraglider

Ratio Decidendi

A tandem paraglider used for instruction is not an 'aircraft' within the meaning of the 1967 Order; the flight was not 'for reward' but was part of a course of instruction; and the claimant, as a trainee pilot under instruction, was not a 'passenger' under the Order. Therefore, the statutory regime did not apply, and the claimant retained her rights in negligence and contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs here and below, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Defendant to make a payment on account of costs in the sum of £20,000 pending detailed assessment.