NIALL CALDWELL & Anor AGAINST EASYJET AIRLINE COMPANY Ltd [2015] ScotSC 64 (19 October 2015)

NIALL CALDWELL & Anor AGAINST EASYJET AIRLINE COMPANY Ltd [2015] ScotSC 64 (19 October 2015)

The pursuers' claim for damages for breach of contract fails because the contract placed responsibility for timely arrival at the gate on the passengers, and no breach by the defender was established. The claim for compensation under Regulation 261/2004 also fails because the pursuers were not 'denied boarding' within the meaning of the Regulation; they missed the flight due to late arrival at the gate, not due to a refusal by the carrier. The court has jurisdiction as Edinburgh was the place of destination under the contract.

Citation
[2015] ScotSC 64
Parties
Pursuer: Niall Caldwell; Pursuer: Aileen McLuckie; Defender: EasyJet Airline Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Summary Cause / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction Under Montreal Convention, Denied Boarding Compensation, Interpretation of Regulation (ec) No 261/2004, Damages for Missed Flights
Contract Law Aviation Law European Union Law Consumer Protection Breach of Contract Jurisdiction Under Montreal Convention Denied Boarding Compensation Interpretation of Regulation (ec) No 261/2004 +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Niall Caldwell

Pursuer

Aileen McLuckie

Pursuer

EasyJet Airline Company Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Cause / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers are entitled to damages for breach of contract for missed flight
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers were 'denied boarding' under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and entitled to compensation
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' claim for damages for breach of contract fails because the contract placed responsibility for timely arrival at the gate on the passengers, and no breach by the defender was established. The claim for compensation under Regulation 261/2004 also fails because the pursuers were not 'denied boarding' within the meaning of the Regulation; they missed the flight due to late arrival at the gate, not due to a refusal by the carrier. The court has jurisdiction as Edinburgh was the place of destination under the contract.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor in favour of the defender
  • No award of expenses