Graham & Anor v Thomas Cook Group

Graham & Anor v Thomas Cook Group

There is no arguable basis for a claim for damages for breach of Article 8 of Regulation 261/2004, nor for distress, wasted expenditure, or punitive damages under the contract of carriage or common law; enforcement of the Regulation is through regulatory means, not private law actions.

Parties
Appellant: Graham & Anr; Respondent: Thomas Cook Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal, Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Air Passenger Rights, Damages, Contract of Carriage, Enforcement of EU Regulations
Aviation Law Contract Law EU Law Air Passenger Rights Damages Contract of Carriage Enforcement of EU Regulations

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham & Anr

Appellant

Thomas Cook Group

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does breach of Article 8 of EC Regulation 261/2004 give rise to a civil action for damages?
  2. 2 Are damages for distress, wasted expenditure, or punitive damages recoverable for breach of contract of carriage in these circumstances?
  3. 3 Does the Montreal Convention exclude or limit such claims?

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arguable basis for a claim for damages for breach of Article 8 of Regulation 261/2004, nor for distress, wasted expenditure, or punitive damages under the contract of carriage or common law; enforcement of the Regulation is through regulatory means, not private law actions.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.