In short: The Court of Appeal held that technical problems, even unforeseen ones, are part of an airline’s normal activity and do not excuse a long delay.
| Case | Jet2.com Limited v Ronald Huzar |
|---|---|
| Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 791 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (England and Wales) |
| Date | |
| Full text | The National Archives – Find Case Law |
The facts
Mr Huzar was booked on Jet2 flight LS 0810 from Malaga to Manchester on 26 October 2011, scheduled to leave at 18.25 and land at 20.25. On the inbound flight to Malaga a fuel advisory light had come on, indicating a possible defect in the fuel shut-off valve. A spare valve was fitted but the problem remained, and the cause – a wiring defect in the fuel valve circuit – took time to find. The passengers left at 21.09 the next day and landed in Manchester some 27 hours late.
It was not disputed that the fault was unforeseen and unforeseeable. District Judge Dignan in Stockport County Court accepted Jet2’s extraordinary circumstances defence. On appeal, His Honour Judge Platts in Manchester County Court held that the defence did not apply and awarded compensation. Jet2 appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The question
Is an unexpected technical defect that could not have been prevented by maintenance or inspection an “extraordinary circumstance”?
What the court decided
- The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Elias, with Lady Justice Gloster and Lord Justice Laws agreeing) dismissed Jet2’s appeal. Difficult technical problems arise as a matter of course in an airline’s operations. Some are foreseeable and some are not, but all are inherent in the normal exercise of the airline’s activity – in the court’s words, “they are part of the wear and tear”.
- The court rejected Jet2’s argument that a problem is extraordinary if it could not have been picked up in maintenance. That would turn Article 5(3) into a fault test, which its wording does not support.
- Events such as terrorism, strikes, air traffic control problems or freak weather, caused by third parties or outside forces, are the kind that are not inherent in an airline’s normal activity.
Summarised from the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.
What it means for you
This is the leading UK authority on technical faults. It binds the county courts in England and Wales, where most passenger claims are heard, and the CAA cites it. In Lipton v BA Cityflyer (2024) the UK Supreme Court expressly agreed with its analysis.
If an airline in the UK says a fault was “unforeseeable”, Huzar is the answer: whether it could have been foreseen does not matter. Unless the cause lies outside the airline’s normal activity – like the third-party and weather events the court listed – compensation is due.
Read more: Technical faults · Extraordinary circumstances · Flight delay compensation · UK261 explained.
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
- Germanwings v Pauels – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
- van der Lans v KLM – Unexpected component failure is not extraordinary
- Siewert v Condor – Ground equipment hitting the aircraft is not extraordinary
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- LE v TAP – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
- Moens v Ryanair – Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary
Sources
- Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791 (judgment of 11 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.