Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Lipton v BA City Flyer to be heard in the UK Supreme Court

Lipton v BA City Flyer to be heard in the UK Supreme Court

Old Jan 16, 2024, 5:46 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 685
Lipton v BA City Flyer to be heard in the UK Supreme Court

This case will be heard by the UK Supreme Court on 6 February. The hearing can be watched online view the UKSC website.

Lipton and another (Respondents) v BA Cityflyer Ltd (Appellant) - The Supreme Court

Lord Justice Coulson sitting in the Court of Appeal held that ".....I consider that the captains non-attendance for work due to illness was inherent in the air carriers activity and operations and was not an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation. If my Lords agree, I would allow this appeal and order that the respondent compensate the appellants for their cancelled flight from Milan to London."
Newly Wed is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 5:57 am
  #2  
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: 38,000 feet
Programs: LH HON, BA GGL, AF Plat, EK Plat
Posts: 6,439
Oh this will be very interesting!
becks1 and SxMan like this.
nufnuf77 is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 5:57 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: UK
Programs: BA Silver, IHG Platinum
Posts: 950
I genuinely cannot believe a case of this nature has made the Supreme Court, given it is a dispute over what can only be a couple of hundred pounds.
scolbath, becks1, SxMan and 2 others like this.
Bohinjska Bistrica is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 6:09 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gloucestershire
Programs: BA Gold (ex-GGL, maybe future Silver), Hilton Diamond
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by Bohinjska Bistrica
I genuinely cannot believe a case of this nature has made the Supreme Court, given it is a dispute over what can only be a couple of hundred pounds.
The court sets precedent.

It's not commercially unreasonable for the airlines not to want a Supreme Court precedent and to settle those that are persistent while brushing away all the others based on their own interpretation: if the claim is successful, the existence of this precedent will embolden claimants.

However, there is a wider public interest issue - almost everyone could be affected by a 261 claim at some point in their lives.
Cymro is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 6:12 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: FL390 or the iron way
Programs: BA GGL
Posts: 1,819
I thought that BA had dropped their attempted appeal to the Supreme Court?

Cannot see how BA can succeed here given the extensive list of judgments which support the Court of Appeal's holding.

The precise reason why the captain fell ill or indeed the reason why he didn't turn up to work is neither here nor there. The point is that this is a risk inherent in airlines' operations.
oceanscape likes this.
flarmip is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 6:14 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by Cymro
The court sets precedent.

It's not commercially unreasonable for the airlines not to want a Supreme Court precedent and to settle those that are persistent while brushing away all the others based on their own interpretation: if the claim is successful, the existence of this precedent will embolden claimants.

However, there is a wider public interest issue - almost everyone could be affected by a 261 claim at some point in their lives.
milan to lcy? the captain went ill down route?
scottishpoet is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 6:26 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AMS/LON
Programs: BAEC Silver, TK Gold, Eurostar CB, FB Explorer
Posts: 242
From the very clear and helpful Supreme Court summary: "Mr and Mrs Lipton's flight from Milan to London was cancelled because their pilot unexpectedly and suddenly fell ill at short notice while he was at home and off duty."

(it doesn't state whether home is Milan, London, or somewhere else)
oceanscape likes this.
happyintheair is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 6:30 am
  #8  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 64,186
Originally Posted by Bohinjska Bistrica
I genuinely cannot believe a case of this nature has made the Supreme Court, given it is a dispute over what can only be a couple of hundred pounds.
In the Court of Appeal judgement, Lord Justice Coulson said, under a heading "Too granular an investigation":

Originally Posted by Coulson LJ
Most of these claims are assigned to the Small Claims Track, and the vast bulk of them should be capable of being determined on the papers. In those circumstances, it is contrary to the scheme of the Regulation to allow the carrier to embark on a complex analysis of precisely when, why or how a staff member became ill so as to explain their absence and the subsequent cancellation of the flight.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 6:32 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: GVA
Programs: BA Gold, LH FTL, KL/AF Ivory
Posts: 1,883
When I first started looking at this thread, I thought someone had received a cup of tea at the wrong termperature or the milk had been poured before the tea or vice-vera
catandmouse is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 6:47 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Posts: 22
The judgement is actually quite important, putting aside the matter of the flights.

The judgement also contains a framework for applying EU case law to "retained laws" from pre-brexit that have been copied into UK law, and is one of the first cases to consider this, so the tests applied by the court of appeal are also likely in the firing line here, hence why it has got to the level of the Supreme Court. The question under appeal isn't just the pilots illness being exceptional, it is the application of EU cases in the judgement and how the retained aspect of the legislation alters how this is dealt with.

I suspect the consideration will more be on the constitutional question on the application of EU case law post-Brexit, not the finding in regards to the judgement itself (which would normally not be appealable to this level), as without the consideration of the former they are unlikely to find the latter is a question to be appealed

Last edited by Mdann52; Jan 16, 2024 at 6:54 am
Mdann52 is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 6:53 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: BA Gold, AA PLT PRO, AGR, Strawberry (Nordic Choice), Marriott Bonvoy
Posts: 4,261
Originally Posted by catandmouse
When I first started looking at this thread, I thought someone had received a cup of tea at the wrong termperature or the milk had been poured before the tea or vice-vera
I thought this was a defamation suit by Lipton against BA arguing that theyd maligned their delicious tea!
salut0 is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 7:16 am
  #12  
Formerly known as tireman77
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,674
What a spectacular waste of time, money, energy and resources.
PLeblond is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 7:18 am
  #13  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,979
Originally Posted by PLeblond
What a spectacular waste of time, money, energy and resources.
Why?
Tobias-UK is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 7:21 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Programs: BAEC GGLfL
Posts: 540
Originally Posted by PLeblond
What a spectacular waste of time, money, energy and resources.
Do you understand how a common law system works and the doctrine of precedent?
Finland Station is offline  
Old Jan 16, 2024, 7:28 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: UK
Programs: BA Silver, IHG Platinum
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by Cymro
The court sets precedent.

It's not commercially unreasonable for the airlines not to want a Supreme Court precedent and to settle those that are persistent while brushing away all the others based on their own interpretation: if the claim is successful, the existence of this precedent will embolden claimants.

However, there is a wider public interest issue - almost everyone could be affected by a 261 claim at some point in their lives.
Fully understand that. I am just quite surprised that BA didn't just pay up and remove the possibility of what could well be a pretty bad public outcome for them. I am equally surprised someone has gone to the time and effort of pursuing it this far, right enough, but that's another matter entirely.

I have limited sympathy for them, however. They seem to be quite dishonest in some of their rejections of valid 261 claims.
Bohinjska Bistrica is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.