Airlines face paying millions in compensation to tens of thousands of holidaymakers as Supreme Court rules British Airways should have paid couple whose flight was cancelled because pilot was sick
- British Airways refused to pay a couple £220 compensation for a flight delay
Airlines could face forking out millions in compensation to customers following a Supreme Court ruling crew sickness is not 'an extraordinary circumstance'.
Kenneth and Linda Lipton took British Airways to court after their flight from Milan landed in London two and a half hours late.
Their original flight was cancelled due to a pilot becoming unwell shortly before the plane was set to jet off in January 2018.
The airline refused to hand over £220 compensation to the couple for the delay, stating the pilot's illness was an unavoidable 'extraordinary circumstance'.
The Supreme Court has now ruled in their favour, adding that although the sum was small, 'the decision has the potential to affect tens of thousands of claims'.
Airlines face paying out millions in compensation to customers after the Supreme Court rules staff sickness is not 'an extraordinary circumstance' (stock image)
Travellers who have had their claims rejected in the last six years in England and Wales can now resubmit claims for compensation.
Passengers in Scotland can do so if their claim happened in the past five years.
Two courts previously supported the company's decision to not compensate the Lipton's.
But after the Court of Appeal ruled in the couple's favour the case was taken to the highest court in the land.
On Wednesday, five Supreme Court justices unanimously dismissed the company's appeal.
In their judgement, the judges also highlighted the intention of Regulation 261 to protect flyers rights and 'to ensure a high level of protection for consumers'.
The Supreme Court said it 'does not matter' when the pilot fell ill, as the crew member remained an 'inherent part of the airline's operation' even when not on duty.
They added: 'If the pilot drinks so as to be unfit to report for work and the flight is cancelled, then the reason for the cancellation is inherent in the airline's activity and operations.
'The same is also true of the need for the captain and other cabin crew to ensure that they are properly rested during stopovers.
'They have numerous obligations both to their employers and to the public during those periods.'
Although two courts previously upheld British Airways decision not to pay Kenneth and Linda Lipton £220 for their delayed flight after the pilot fell ill, the Supreme Court has now ruled in the couple's favour (stock image)
They also maintained staff sickness could not 'be categorised as extraordinary', as it's meaning implies 'something out of the ordinary' - to which they said workers falling ill is not.
They added: 'These are all inherent in the carrier's activity and operations and if, for whatever reason, they are unable to attend for work as a result of something going awry during those rest periods, whether it is their fault or not, that failure to attend is not an extraordinary circumstance.'
Coby Benson, a solicitor at Bott and Co told The Independent: 'This decision is an important step forward in protecting air passengers' rights.
'Airlines must now take their responsibilities seriously and ensure they are adequately staffed to avoid such disruptions, and if such disruptions occur, compensate passengers appropriately.'
A British Airways spokesperson said: 'We are disappointed with this decision and respect the judgment of the Court.'
MailOnline has approached Airlines UK for comment.
