In short: In England and Wales, claims for EU261 compensation have the six-year Limitation Act period, not the Montreal Convention’s two-year limit.
| Case | James Dawson v Thomson Airways Limited |
|---|---|
| Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 845 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (England and Wales) |
| Date | |
| Full text | The National Archives – Find Case Law |
The facts
Mr Dawson’s flight from Gatwick to the Dominican Republic in December 2006 was delayed by crew shortages caused by sickness and arrived more than six hours late. He claimed €600 per person.
He started proceedings in December 2012, just before the six-year limitation period under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 expired. Thomson Airways accepted it would have been liable if he had sued in time, but argued that the two-year period in Article 35 of the Montreal Convention applied. His Honour Judge Yelton in Cambridge County Court gave judgment for Mr Dawson for £1,488.73, and the airline appealed.
The question
Is a claim for fixed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 subject to the Montreal Convention’s two-year time limit, or to the ordinary limitation period under English law?
What the court decided
- The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Moore-Bick, with Lord Justice Kitchin and Lord Justice Fulford agreeing) dismissed the airline’s appeal.
- It held that it was bound to follow the Court of Justice’s rulings – including Sturgeon, Nelson and Cuadrench Moré – that compensation under Article 7 falls outside the Montreal Convention. The Convention’s time bar therefore does not apply, and the claim was governed by the six-year period in the Limitation Act 1980.
Summarised from the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.
What it means for you
In England and Wales you have six years to bring a claim for EU261 or UK261 compensation. The limit is also 6 years in Northern Ireland and 5 years in Scotland.
Even so, claim early if you can: evidence such as boarding passes and messages from the airline is easier to gather while it is fresh.
Read more: Time limits for claims · Flight delay compensation · The Montreal Convention · Taking an airline to the small claims court.
Status in the UK
A decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. It binds the county courts in England and Wales, where most passenger claims are heard. Courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland are not bound by it, but may treat it as persuasive.
How EU rulings apply after Brexit is explained on our case-law overview.
This is a plain-English summary written by our editorial team, not legal advice. Judgments turn on their facts, and later rulings can refine them. Before relying on a case in a dispute, read the full judgment or get advice.
Related cases
- LOT v Budapest Government Office – Enforcement bodies may order airlines to pay
- LE v TAP – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
- Moens v Ryanair – Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary
- Germanwings v Pauels – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
- Wegener v Royal Air Maroc – EU departures with a non-EU stopover are covered all the way
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
Sources
- Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 845 (judgment of 19 June 2014) – The National Archives – Find Case Law
We check every rule against the sources above. Spotted an error? Tell us – see our editorial policy.