If the EU compensation was available, now much approximately would we be talking about?

The standard for a long haul delay/cancellation - €600.

If EC 261/2004 applies, OP would be entitled to EUR 600 for a Type III flight. I presume that what would be considered "duty of care" under EC 261/2004, e.g. hotel and meals, was covered in any event. If not, that would be compensated too.

This is not the first time the issue arises and it is hard to understand how the EU could assert jurisdiction over a delay which ocurred on a flight between two points outside the EU on a non-EU carrier where the reason for the delay has nothing to do with the EU in any manner.

This is wholly different than the situation where the flight departs from the EU, arrives into the connection point sufficiently late to cause a misconnect to the final ticketed destination, but not late enough at the connection point to warrant compensation. In that instance, compensation is, of course due and is measured at the final ticketed destination.

I would be surprised if OP prevails here, at least initially and without a fight on the specific facts of this case as this is not quite the EK fact pattern.

The ticket was QF2 LHR-SYD. There was no connection. (just a splash & dash pit stop) The aircraft become unserviceable during the journey. This is the airlines problem.

If the trip was sold say as QF9 LHR-DXB then QF2 DXB-SYD that's very different

There was still 2 legs- from IATA definitions, a leg is "The operation between a departure station and the next arrival station." . I would be surprised if a lower court was to treat this differently to the same situation as in Gahan vs Emirates

Paragraphs 12 and 13 at https://www.smarterwebcompany.co.uk/...ay%202016).pdf seem to relate to it quite well

It doesn't seem that different to Sangvhi vs Cathay Pacific other than it was the same flight number rather than different flight numbers

Basically if the Gahan appeal succeeds it will effectively overturn Sanghvi (or at least severely attenuate its use going forward).

The CJEU held in Air France SA v Folkerts that for the purposes of calculating compensation arrival at the claimant’s final destination should be used as the criteria. This was on the basis of the inconvenience of the delay was destination based, rather than at connecting posrt(s).

A little under two years beforehand in Sanghvi, the High Court, following Schenkel, determined that Regulation 261 was only concerned with individual flight components of any journey, and that the claimant’s second flight was outside the scope of Article 3.

As a result there is a conflict between the binding High Court authority and a later, contradictory view from the CJEU.

In Gahan, the judge in relation to Folkerts distinguished that both flights were of a Community Carrier and fell within the scope of Regulation 261, so was not relevant in that manner to Gahan.

None of these cases are specifically relevant to a Direct flight such as QF2 LHR-SYD.

If the appeal succeeds, then I cannot see any reason why a claim for this would not succeed , since it seems to be the same situation

They are directly relevant

according to IATA - A leg is defined as The operation between a departure station and the next arrival station

so QF2 consists of 2 legs

and the court stated

the second leg of the journey must be viewed separately

If the Court of Appeal rules in favour of Gahan, lodge a claim immediately. Lodge before then and I suspect that all that will happen is that the case will be deferred until the definitive ruling. There is 6 years to lodge the claim in the UK, so no reason to rush out and pay to submit the case until a ruling is given

This case is interesting - unlike the other cases, this is a single flight coupon and a single boarding pass.

On arrival in Australia, London passengers would not be incorrect to state they boarded this flight in London (for the purposes of their arrival cards).

Whether or not that makes a difference remains to be seen, but it is at least a matter of distinction.

With the Liverpool court referring to the definition of a flight and the reference to "leg" ( which itself has a precise definition ) , it seems to be the same situation to me, regardless of number of boarding passes

I would hold off until the appeal ruling and, if it fails, then decide whether it is worth gambling the cost of lodging a claim on the hope it will be classed separately

Alternatively, lodge now and see if a court rules quicker than waiting for the appeal ruling and does not go with Sanghi vs Cathay

Possibly - but this case can be distinguished if the court so wishes, because the facts are different. Single flight coupon, single boarding pass, and for all intents and purposes including ticketing and anything else (FF points) the airlines consider this a single flight (for example on a RTW this is would be a single segment). The other cases all involved a connecting flight with a separate flight number and separate coupon.

Yesterday's QF2 went tech as well. Food spoilt and crew timed out. QF considered swapping QF9 and QF2 birds but that would have resulted in even greater misconnects.

The previous day QF2 diverted to DWC due to fog.

I would consider this one flight, and so does QF through the allocation of credits/points based on the through flight rather than the higher two segments.

QF2 pax have been delayed 24 hours to allow the previously delayed pax to fly. Basically rolling delays due to a faulty fuel gauge sensor http://www.smh.com.au/national/qanta...31-gtk7b5.html

But Joyce managed to get out on the next available flight :) Looks like he wasn't impressed to be stranded in DXB and wasn't about to be talking with the QF pax there. How ironic that QF is saddled with a CEO who is so out of touch with what is happening to his airline even when he is on the scene and could be working at the coalface :)

Question - did QF know before the flight departed London that pax would be delayed once they got to DXB?

If they had predetermined this, I reckon it should be treated as a delayed/cancelled flight for the purpose of EU261.

Shuffling pax part way through shouldn't absolve the airline from paying compensation.