‘Airline passengers could be entitled to billions of pounds’ worth of compensation, depending on the outcome of two flight delay cases at the court of appeal next month.’
The Guardian, 26th April 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Passengers face higher fares after the Civil Aviation Authority rejected pleas from airlines for landing charges to be cut over the next five years.”
Daily Telegraph, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Airline sued newspaper for libel after it claimed some pilots were concerned that a fuel policy may have put passengers at risk.”
The Guardian, 12th September 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Fox v British Airways plc [2013] EWCA Civ 972; [2013] WLR (D) 330
“Where a claimant could establish liability for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination in respect of his son who had been a member of a company pension scheme and who died shortly after dismissal by the company for medical incapacity, the son’s estate would be entitled to compensation in a sum equivalent to the full amount of the death in service benefit that would have been payable under the scheme if the son had remained in employment at the date of his death.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where judgment was given in an English court that a patent, whether English or European, was valid and infringed, and the patent was subsequently retrospectively revoked or amended, whether in England or at the European Patent Office, the defendant was entitled to rely on the fact of the revocation or amendment on an inquiry as to damages in respect of the unamended patent.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The UK Supreme Court has ruled that companies found to have infringed patents can rely on the subsequent amendment of patent claims to exonerate them from liability for damages.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“A Cheshire solicitors has recovered more than £300,000 for 700 passengers with their no-win no-fee service.”
The Guardian, 15th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Nadia Eweida has succeeded in her claim that the UK breached her right to manifest her religion under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Readers may remember that she worked for British Airways, and refused to abide by its uniform policy, insisting on wearing a cross visible to customers. By a majority of five to two (the dissenters including the Court’s British former President, Sir Nicolas Bratza), the judges of the European Court of Human Rights found that the English court that dismissed her religious discrimination and human rights claim at national level, the Court of Appeal, gave too much weight to BA’s corporate aims and not enough to Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religion by wearing her cross. In consequence, the UK breached its ‘positive obligation’ to protect her right to manifest her religion.”
Head of Legal, 15th January 2013
Source: www.headoflegal.com
“The Strasbourg Court has today [15 January] come up with something of a mixed message in relation to religion at work. They have voted that there is a right to manifest individual faith by wearing religious adornments but not by objecting to practices that are protected by anti-discrimination legislation.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“After seven years of legal appeals and accusations that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs, the European court of human rights has ruled that a British Airways check-in operator should not have been prevented from wearing a cross at work.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A British Airways check-in worker’s right to express her religion was unfairly restricted when she was prevented from wearing a cross at work, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
British Airways plc v Williams and others [2012] UKSC 43; [2012] WLR (D) 277
“Where a group of airline pilots’ claimed that their paid annual leave (as required by a European Aviation Directive) should include their regular supplementary allowances as well as their basic pay and, on a reference by the Supreme Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union had interpreted the Directive as requiring pay for annual leave to correspond to normal remuneration, assessed as being the average over a representative period of all remuneration save that intended exclusively to cover costs, the absence of a detailed domestic legislative scheme implementing the Directive’s requirements as to paid annual leave did not preclude an employment tribunal from making such an assessment.”
WLR Daily, 17th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The concept of ‘optional price supplements’, referred to in the last sentence of article 23(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, covered costs connected with the air travel, arising from services, such as flight cancellation insurance, supplied by a party other than the air carrier and charged to the customer by the person selling that travel, together with the air fare, as part of a total price.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A provision in a collective agreement applicable to a group of companies within the airline industry which only took into account experience acquired as a cabin crew member from the date of recruitment by a specific airline company for the purposes of grading in the employment categories provided for in that agreement did not constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Office of Fair Trading has more than halved a £121.5m fine levied against British Airways for colluding with Virgin Atlantic in a fuel surcharge scam. The consumer watchdog reduced the fine to £58.5m to reflect new guidelines for financial sanctions and BA’s co-operation with the inquiry. Virgin Atlantic escaped any penalty because it blew the whistle on the collusion over setting fuel surcharges between 2004 and 2006.”
The Guardian, 19th April 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A British Airways stewardess who has been unable to return to work since a metal canister fell on her head while on duty is to receive £280,000 damages.”
The Independent, 26th March 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“If you need reminding of what it feels like when the candy-floss of human rights is abruptly snatched away, take a flight. Full body scanners and other security checks are nothing to the array of potential outrages awaiting passengers boarding an aircraft. Air passengers in general surrender their rights at the point of ticket purchase.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th February 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A court ruling could pave the way for the introduction of a ‘fat tax’ for obese fliers, a leading barrister has claimed.”
Daily Telegraph, 7th February 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Ryanair Holdings Ltd v Office of Fair Trading and another; [2011] EWCA Civ 1579; [2011] WLR (D) 392
“The Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules granted a power to suspend the running of time, with regard to an investigation by the OFT, as a matter of urgency and in order to protect the public interest.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Rodríguez and Others v Air France SA (Case C-83/10); [2011] WLR (D) 348
“‘Cancellation’, in article 2(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation 261/2004/EC was not limited to the situation in which an aeroplane failed to take off at all, but also covered the case in which it took off but, for whatever reason, was subsequently forced to return to the airport of departure where the passengers were transferred to other flights. ‘Further compensation’ in article 12 of the Regulation allowed the national court to award compensation under the Montreal Convention for damage arising from breach of the contract of carriage by air. However that meaning was not the legal basis for the national court to order an air carrier to reimburse to passengers whose flight had been delayed or cancelled the expenses the latter had incurred because of the failure of that carrier to fulfil its obligations to assist and provide care under articles 8 and 9 of the Regulation.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024