Originally Posted by
NickB
Any basis for that assertion?
Not sure whether the Warsaw or Montreal Convention would be applicable here but under either the carrier is responsible for damage resulting from a delay in transportation and there is nothing in either Convention to suggest that "consequential" damages are excluded. It is just the usual question of foreseeability of the damage and whether Royal Brunei took all the (reasonable) necessary steps to avoid the damage.
I would personally try to write a letter to Royal Brunei, explaining that the delay caused the OP to miss the flight he originally booked and ask for reimbursement of the new ticket (s)he had to buy and take it from there.
This is a dead horse. OP can try a lawsuit, but he will lose. Carriers fight the consequential damage issue as a line in the sand. Nobody cares about the GBP 170 here. It is the poor sod who loses a GBP Million commission on a huge sale or even forfeits a luxury cruise and so on.
OP's sole likely remedy here is to go back and read his insurance policy. It is possible that there is an exclusion for no shows on separate tickets. I would never take the word of a low-level company employee.
The pity here is that OP did not call BA from DXB. BA has a uniquely consumer-friendly provision in its COC which commits, not to rebooking, but to determining what can be done. Perhaps here, BA would have simply changed the LHR-GLA, imposed a fee or collected only the fare difference. But, if you don't call, you have simply no showed and the consequence of that is clear.
OP may see some taxes back, but after BA and then Expedia take their separate administrative fees, it may not be worth the time.