Searching:
  • Acts
  • SIs
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Bills before Parliament
Searching:
  • Official Journal C
  • OJC Documents (in CELEX)
  • EU Cases
  • EU Legislation
  • EU Treaties
  • EU Proposals
  • EU Nat. Implementation
  • EU Parl. Questions
  • EFTA Documents
  • EU External Agreements
  • OJ Daily
  • Human Rights Conventions
Searching:
  • HERMES
  • Times
  • EU News and Commentaries
  • CUP Journals
  • Bills before Parliament
  • Other Articles
  • PLC
  • OUP Journals
  • Blackwell Journals
  • RMIT Journals
  • Court Forms
close
Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd
To see all the information available for this document you will need to Sign In.

1 User Commentary

Melanie Davidson (In-house lawyer) 24 September 2015

Case Digest

0 reviews Your rating:

Whether the claim for compensation for a delayed flight under Regulation 261/2004 art 7 was outside the scope of the Montreal Convention on International Carriage by Air 1999

Lord Justice Moore-Bick handed down judgment in the case of Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd, [2014] EWCA Civ 845 on 19th June 2014.

The case concerned a delayed flight from Gatwick to the Dominican Republic. The appellant (Thomson Airways) appealed against a decision of the lower court awarding compensation under Art 7 of Regulation 261/2004 to the respondent passenger (Dawson) in respect of the delayed flight in 2006.

The respondent had made this claim before the expiry of the six-year limitation period under s. 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. The appellant argued that the claim was out of time as it was subjected to the two-year limitation period contained in Art 35 of the Montreal Convention on International Carriage by Air as opposed to the six-year limitation period under the 1980 Act, since the claim fell within the scope of the Convention.

The appellant maintained that the claim for compensation was really a claim for loss and damage and therefore the two-year limitation period contained in the Convention had to apply.

The Court of Appeal held that such a claim was outside the Montreal Convention and the two-year limitation contained in the Convention did not apply. The court was bound to follow and apply the decision of the European Court in relation to the nature of the claim for compensation under Art 7 and its compatibility with the Convention. That also included the ECJ's ruling that the obligation in question lies outside the scope of the Convention.

Therefore, the appellant's appeal failed and the six-year limitation period under s. 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied.

database/2017-10-24T08:34:22.9272325Z/10650332

Getting the most out of


JustCite is a one-of-its-kind legal research tool that shows you how materials cite and relate to each other. It has an enormous index of information about legal documents and where to find them, but does not contain the documents themselves.

Justis is our full-text online legal library, with an ever-growing range of primary and specialist law reports, judgments and legislation from the UK, Ireland, EU, Australia and Canada.

Register for a Free Trial
Get started with Justis and JustCite now