In short: Compensation for a 3-hour delay (Sturgeon), the rule that technical faults do not excuse the airline (Wallentin-Hermann, van der Lans, Jet2 v Huzar), that staff strikes and crew sickness are the airline's risk (Krüsemann, Airhelp v SAS, Lipton) and the six-year time limit in England and Wales (Dawson) all come from court rulings. Below are 24 of the most important: 20 from the Court of Justice of the EU, 3 from the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and 1 from the UK Supreme Court.
How to use this library
Each case page gives the citation, court and date, the facts, the legal question, what the court decided, what it means for your claim and how it applies in the UK, with a link to the full judgment on EUR-Lex or The National Archives. We only include cases we have checked against the official text.
These are plain-English summaries, not legal advice. A ruling depends on its facts, and later cases can refine it. If you rely on a case in a complaint or in court, quote the judgment itself – the link is on every page.
Quoting the right case can make a difference. If an airline rejects your claim because of a "technical problem", citing Wallentin-Hermann and van der Lans (and, in England and Wales, Jet2 v Huzar) shows that you know the rule. Our complaint letter generator and step-by-step claim guide show where to use them.
How rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU work
Passengers do not take airlines to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. They sue in their national courts – a local court in Germany, a commercial court in Vienna, a district court in Sweden. When such a court is unsure how Regulation 261/2004 should be interpreted, it can stay the case and ask the Court of Justice a question (a "reference for a preliminary ruling" under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU).
The Court's answer is a ruling on what the regulation means. The court that asked must apply it, and courts across the EU follow it in later cases. That is why one family's dispute over a delayed flight from Toronto – the Sturgeon case – changed the rules for every passenger in Europe. The operative part at the end of each judgment states the answer; our case pages paraphrase it.
In the courts of EU countries, the Court's rulings – old and new – apply to every flight covered by EU261, including flights from an EU airport to the UK.
How these rulings apply in the UK after Brexit
When the UK left the EU, Regulation 261/2004 was kept as part of UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and adapted for the UK – the version usually called UK261, with compensation of £220, £350 or £520. The courts read it together with the case law that existed at the end of the Brexit transition period, 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (the Act calls this "IP completion day").
- Rulings of the Court of Justice made before that date (Sturgeon, Wallentin-Hermann, Folkerts, van der Lans and most of the cases here) are part of UK law. Since 1 January 2024 the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 calls this "assimilated" EU case law; it was previously called "retained" EU case law.
- County courts and sheriff courts, where almost all passenger claims are decided, must follow it (section 6(3) of the 2018 Act).
- The UK Supreme Court is not bound by it (section 6(4)), and nor, under regulations made in 2020 (SI 2020/1525), are certain appeal courts, including the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and the Inner House of the Court of Session. They may depart from it, applying the same test the Supreme Court uses to depart from its own earlier decisions.
- Rulings made after 31 December 2020 – such as Airhelp v SAS (2021), LOT (2022) and TAP v flightright (2023) – do not bind UK courts, although they may have regard to them (section 6(1)–(2)).
Claims about flights disrupted before the end of 2020 are a special case. In Lipton v BA Cityflyer (2024), the UK Supreme Court held that such a claim is governed by the law in force when the flight was disrupted – the regulation as it then stood in EU law – not the later UK-amended version. The majority treated the claim as retained EU law under section 3 of the 2018 Act; one justice, Lord Lloyd-Jones, would have applied EU law directly. All five agreed that the captain’s illness in that case was not an extraordinary circumstance – the same result the Court of Justice reached for EU261 in 2023.
The 2023 Act also contains a new test for when higher courts may depart from assimilated case law (section 6 of that Act). When we last checked legislation.gov.uk, that section had not been brought into force. Decisions of the UK Supreme Court bind the courts below it, and decisions of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, such as Jet2 v Huzar and Dawson v Thomson Airways, bind the county courts in England and Wales in the usual way.
Cases by topic
Some cases appear under more than one topic.
Flight delays
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- Nelson and TUI Travel – Confirmed Sturgeon; delay compensation is valid
- Folkerts – Connecting flights: delay is measured at the final destination
- Jet2 v Huzar – Unforeseen technical faults are not extraordinary (UK)
- Dawson v Thomson Airways – 6-year limit in England and Wales, not 2 years
- Germanwings v Henning – Arrival time = when a door opens
- Siewert v Condor – Ground equipment hitting the aircraft is not extraordinary
- van der Lans v KLM – Unexpected component failure is not extraordinary
- Pešková v Travel Service – Bird strikes are extraordinary; other delay still counts
- Gahan v Emirates – Connections via Dubai etc.: delay at final destination counts
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- Wegener v Royal Air Maroc – EU departures with a non-EU stopover are covered all the way
- Germanwings v Pauels – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
- Moens v Ryanair – Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary
- LE v TAP – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
- LOT v Budapest Government Office – Enforcement bodies may order airlines to pay
Guide: Flight delay compensation
Cancellations
- Wallentin-Hermann – Technical problems are normally the airline’s risk; the two-part test
- Rehder v Air Baltic – Sue at the departure or arrival airport, your choice
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- Cuadrench Moré v KLM – Time limits are set by national law
- McDonagh v Ryanair – Care is owed even in extraordinary circumstances
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- Airhelp v SAS – Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary
- TAP v flightright – Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary
- Lipton v BA Cityflyer – Pilot illness is not extraordinary (UK Supreme Court)
Missed connections and connecting flights
- Folkerts – Connecting flights: delay is measured at the final destination
- Gahan v Emirates – Connections via Dubai etc.: delay at final destination counts
- flightright v Air Nostrum – Where to sue over connecting flights run by two airlines
- Wegener v Royal Air Maroc – EU departures with a non-EU stopover are covered all the way
- LE v TAP – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
Denied boarding
- flightright v Air Nostrum – Where to sue over connecting flights run by two airlines
Guide: Denied boarding compensation
Extraordinary circumstances
- Wallentin-Hermann – Technical problems are normally the airline’s risk; the two-part test
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- McDonagh v Ryanair – Care is owed even in extraordinary circumstances
- Jet2 v Huzar – Unforeseen technical faults are not extraordinary (UK)
- Siewert v Condor – Ground equipment hitting the aircraft is not extraordinary
- van der Lans v KLM – Unexpected component failure is not extraordinary
- Pešková v Travel Service – Bird strikes are extraordinary; other delay still counts
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- Germanwings v Pauels – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
- Moens v Ryanair – Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary
- LE v TAP – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
- Airhelp v SAS – Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary
- TAP v flightright – Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary
- Lipton v BA Cityflyer – Pilot illness is not extraordinary (UK Supreme Court)
Guide: Extraordinary circumstances
Technical faults
- Wallentin-Hermann – Technical problems are normally the airline’s risk; the two-part test
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- Jet2 v Huzar – Unforeseen technical faults are not extraordinary (UK)
- Siewert v Condor – Ground equipment hitting the aircraft is not extraordinary
- van der Lans v KLM – Unexpected component failure is not extraordinary
- Germanwings v Pauels – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
Guide: Technical faults
Strikes
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- Airhelp v SAS – Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary
Guide: Strikes
Care: meals, hotels and expenses
- McDonagh v Ryanair – Care is owed even in extraordinary circumstances
Time limits
- Cuadrench Moré v KLM – Time limits are set by national law
- Dawson v Thomson Airways – 6-year limit in England and Wales, not 2 years
Guide: Time limits for claims
Where you can sue
- Rehder v Air Baltic – Sue at the departure or arrival airport, your choice
- flightright v Air Nostrum – Where to sue over connecting flights run by two airlines
Guide: How to claim, step by step
Enforcement bodies
- LOT v Budapest Government Office – Enforcement bodies may order airlines to pay
All cases at a glance
| Case | Year | Court | What it decided |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lipton v BA Cityflyer | 2024 | UKSC | Pilot illness is not extraordinary (UK Supreme Court) |
| TAP v flightright | 2023 | CJEU | Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary |
| LOT v Budapest Government Office | 2022 | CJEU | Enforcement bodies may order airlines to pay |
| Airhelp v SAS | 2021 | CJEU | Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary |
| LE v TAP | 2020 | CJEU | Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing |
| Moens v Ryanair | 2019 | CJEU | Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary |
| Germanwings v Pauels | 2019 | CJEU | Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary |
| Wegener v Royal Air Maroc | 2018 | CJEU | EU departures with a non-EU stopover are covered all the way |
| Krüsemann v TUIfly | 2018 | CJEU | Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary |
| flightright v Air Nostrum | 2018 | CJEU | Where to sue over connecting flights run by two airlines |
| Gahan v Emirates | 2017 | Court of Appeal (E&W) | Connections via Dubai etc.: delay at final destination counts |
| Pešková v Travel Service | 2017 | CJEU | Bird strikes are extraordinary; other delay still counts |
| van der Lans v KLM | 2015 | CJEU | Unexpected component failure is not extraordinary |
| Siewert v Condor | 2014 | CJEU | Ground equipment hitting the aircraft is not extraordinary |
| Germanwings v Henning | 2014 | CJEU | Arrival time = when a door opens |
| Dawson v Thomson Airways | 2014 | Court of Appeal (E&W) | 6-year limit in England and Wales, not 2 years |
| Jet2 v Huzar | 2014 | Court of Appeal (E&W) | Unforeseen technical faults are not extraordinary (UK) |
| Folkerts | 2013 | CJEU | Connecting flights: delay is measured at the final destination |
| McDonagh v Ryanair | 2013 | CJEU | Care is owed even in extraordinary circumstances |
| Cuadrench Moré v KLM | 2012 | CJEU | Time limits are set by national law |
| Nelson and TUI Travel | 2012 | CJEU | Confirmed Sturgeon; delay compensation is valid |
| Sturgeon | 2009 | CJEU | A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation |
| Rehder v Air Baltic | 2009 | CJEU | Sue at the departure or arrival airport, your choice |
| Wallentin-Hermann | 2008 | CJEU | Technical problems are normally the airline’s risk; the two-part test |
CJEU = Court of Justice of the European Union. Court of Appeal (E&W) = Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division). UKSC = UK Supreme Court. Newest first.
Related guides
- Flight delay compensation
- Cancelled flight compensation
- Missed connection compensation
- Extraordinary circumstances
- EU Regulation 261/2004 explained
- UK261 explained
- Time limits for compensation claims
- Enforcement bodies, ADR and courts
Sources
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (EUR-Lex) – EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)
- European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, section 6: Interpretation of assimilated law – legislation.gov.uk
- The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1525) – legislation.gov.uk
- Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, section 6: Role of courts – legislation.gov.uk
- Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24 – The National Archives – Find Case Law
We check every rule against the sources above. Spotted an error? Tell us – see our editorial policy.