The early summer of 2014 has seen a series of high-profile judicial decisions by senior United Kingdom courts in the field of EU aviation law. The present article explores two decisions on the interpretation and application of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation 261/2004, analysing them with particular emphasis on their relationship with existing CJEU precedent and their economic and operational impacts on carriers. In Huzar v. Jet2.com, the Court of Appeal ruled that the extraordinary circumstances defence in Article 5(3) of the Regulation had to be interpreted narrowly, and did not extend to technical defects arising in the ordinary operation of a carrier's activity. Dawson v. Thomson Airways, handed down in the subsequent week, rejected the airline's contention that claims under the EU Regulation should be limited to two years, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Montreal Convention. A third section turns to the shifting enforcement landscape, highlighting in particular the curious role of the NEBs' Draft List of Extraordinary Circumstances, and the role of the Civil Aviation Authority in enforcing air passengers' rights.
Air and Space Law