STOTT v THOMAS COOK TOUR OPERATORS LTD; HOOK v BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC

[2014] UKSC 15, Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Reid, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson, 5 March 2014

International carriage by air- Liability of air carriers- Disabled passengers- Injury to feelings- Whether passengers' claims are subject to Montreal Convention- Whether Montreal Convention has exclusivity over domestic legislation - Montreal Convention articles 17 and 29

The claimants Stott and Hook were disabled. They brought separate actions against the defendants Thomas Cook and British Airways on the ground that they sustained injury to feelings during the flight because the defendants did not make efforts in arranging seating needs although that was what had been promised when bookings were made. The common issue in both of these actions was whether injury to feelings could be compensated by virtue of the EC Disability Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006) and the UK Disability Regulations (Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1895) or whether such compensation was not recoverable according to the Montreal Convention articles 17 and 29. In the proceedings started by Stott, the judge granted a declaration that Thomas Cook had breached Stott's rights under the EC Disability Regulation but dismissed the claim for damages by reference to the Montreal Convention. On the other hand, Hook's claim for damages was struck out by the application of British Airways against which Hook appealed; however his appeal was dismissed. Both of the claimants appealed against these decisions. The claimants argued that the EC Regulation was made to give effect to fundamental rights and to give access to air travel for disabled persons which they would not have otherwise. They further argued that both the EC Regulation and the UK Disability Regulations supplemented the protection of air passengers in relation to matters not addressed by the Montreal Convention by making provision that injury to feelings sustained by a disabled air passenger was recoverable. This submission also found support by the Secretary of State for Transport who was the intervener in this action. In turn, the defendants contended that the case of the claimants did not comply with the principle of exclusivity of the Montreal Convention established by article 29 and which was illustrated by Sidhu v British Airways plc [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep 76.