18. Even if I had accepted the claimant’s position and found against British Airways on the entry into a binding contract, he still would have failed in his claim. His claim was for specific performance. The contracts were for flights in February 2016. That date was clearly passed. I cannot make British Airways perform that contract.

19. Further, specific performance is only available where damages are not an adequate remedy. No damages claim in respect of the flights or buying alternate flights has been pleaded or put forward. And, clearly, such a damages claim would have been formulated and therefore specific performance would not have been the remedy.

20. There is a claim for an additional £500 in relation to additional expenses and inconvenience. There is no evidence of any additional expenses put forward and, as is accepted law set out in Graham v Thomas Cook Group, there is not a claim for damages, distress, disappointment or inconvenience in relation to simple contracts of carriage which this was, rather than for holiday contacts.

21. I therefore DISMISS the case.

MICHALAK: Can I appeal?

JUDGE BELL: You want permission to appeal?

MICHALAK: Yes

JUDGE BELL: On what basis are you seeking permission to appeal?

MICHALAK: I think I would have to research the procedure more.
JUDGE BELL: Well in the first instance you need to seek my permission and you need to tell me why it is that you believe I got it wrong.

MICHALAK: Well I believe that the law can be applied in a different manner to the facts that I presented.

JUDGE BELL: Well Mr Michalak, I am going to refuse you permission to appeal. I have applied the law to the facts put forward to me. It is open to you to seek to repeat your application for permission to appeal. And that should be made to a circuit judge.

MICHALAK: Okay.