Scots couple awarded compensation after being ‘denied boarding’ by Easyjet

Niall Caldwell and his wife Aileen raised an action against Easyjet after being “effectively abandoned” at Catania airport at the end of their summer holiday in Sicily in September 2014.

A sheriff ruled that they were “denied boarding” in terms of European aviation law due to the “operational inadequacies” of Easyjet’s management and therefore “entitled to compensation and reimbursement” of more than £1,000.

Sheriff Tom Welsh QC heard that the party litigant pursuers had booked and enjoyed a two-week stay on the Italian island during the first two weeks of September 2014, but things turned sour on the final day of their trip.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court was told that on 14 September 2014, the couple arrived at Catania airport at 09.26 to drop off their hire car and by 09.35 they were inside the terminal building - two hours before their 11.35 flight to London Gatwick.

However, the queue for the Easyjet bag-drop/check-in desks was over 100 metres long and the couple soon became concerned they might be late for their flight as there were only three Easyjet staff checking in passengers for four flights.

After 30 minutes wait and little progress, Mr Caldwell walked to the head of the queue and asked Easyjet staff to prioritise the queue to allow those passengers on the earliest flights through first, but his request was refused.

The pursuers then asked other travellers if they could skip to the front of the line, but the passengers refused, and with no prioritisation of the queue the pursuers waited until 10.26 when their bags were accepted by Easyjet for transport.

Still concerned they would be late for their flight, the pursuers asked Easyjet staff if they could be prioritised through the airport security check, but this request was also refused and they were told to join the queue like everyone else as the airline had “no control” over the security queue.

Eventually the pursuers got through security screening at 11.25 and ran to passport control, which they cleared in less than 10 minutes, but when they reached the departure gate for their flight at 11.35 they were informed that the plane had left and their baggage had been unloaded.

No help or assistance was offered by ground staff and the pursuers were forced to book two seats on a BA flight home later that day for £870 - more than double the cost of the flights they had just missed.

Because of the experience they had just had the pursuers were concerned about missing that flight as well, but BA staff guaranteed they would get through security on time and a representative accompanied them through airport security and made sure they got to the departure gate in time for their new flight.

The pursuers reached London Gatwick at 16.05, in time to re-join their original itinerary and their 18.30 onward Easyjet flight home to Edinburgh.

The pursuers initially raised the action only seeking damages at common law, having been required to pay for an alternative carrier to return them to the UK as a direct consequence of the defender’s breach of contract, but later amended their small claim to incorporate a further claim for compensation in terms of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, for having been “denied boarding” against their will by the defender at Catania, and also sought reimbursement of the cost of their missed flight.

The defender contested the pursuers’ claim that this was a genuine case of “denied boarding”, arguing that the pursuers were “simply late for their flight and missed it” and that it was their fault - not the responsibility of the carrier.

The airline also argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim, contending that it should have been heard in an English court, as the defender’s domicile and principal place of business was Luton, and the contract for carriage was concluded online on servers based in England used by Prestige Holidays, the pursuers’ agents, and the defender.

But the sheriff held that since Edinburgh was the place of destination of the contract for carriage between the parties, jurisdiction was established on that basis.

On the claim for damages, the sheriff concluded that the pursuers had “contractually absolved the defender from all liability” for any loss or damage arising from their failure to reach the departure gate on time to catch the flight.

“In my view, the pursuers by contracting like this, on a standard form contract, (which they could not alter) accepted the entire risk should they fail to reach the departure gate, in time for the flight. The defender has the whip hand. The passenger either travels on the carrier’s conditions, or not at all. However unpalatable that may seem, in retrospect, it was the agreement, freely entered into, between these parties”, he said.

However, he observed that the pursuers had arrived at the airport and checked-in on time and “did not dillydally on the way to the departure gate”. Therefore, they were not to blame for the “operational inadequacies” of Easyjet ground staff’s management of the queues.

In a written judgment, Sheriff Welsh said: “In my opinion, provided the passenger presents for check-in on time for a confirmed reserved seat and is not at fault, he is entitled to compensation if denied boarding and the responsibility for taking reasonable steps to facilitate passage through the carrier’s own bag-drop queues and airport security queues, rests with the carrier. To hold otherwise would mean that bona fide and blameless travellers like the Caldwells, who were thrice denied help and assistance by the carrier, would necessarily be deprived of the high level of protection which Regulation No 261/2004, was enacted to provide.

“Thus, in the circumstances of the present case, I am satisfied the facts proved can properly be characterised as denied boarding because of the operational inadequacies of Easyjet ground staff’s management of the Easyjet queues on 14 September 2014 and their failure to facilitate passage through security check, customs and passport control when asked, in circumstances, where it was obvious the passengers were in danger of missing their flight.”