In short: The UK Supreme Court held that a captain falling ill – even before he came on duty – is inherent in an airline’s operations, not an extraordinary circumstance.
| Case | Lipton and another (Respondents) v BA Cityflyer Ltd (Appellant); Civil Aviation Authority intervening |
|---|---|
| Citation | [2024] UKSC 24 |
| Court | UK Supreme Court |
| Date | |
| Full text | The National Archives – Find Case Law |
The facts
Mr and Mrs Lipton were booked on a BA Cityflyer flight from Milan Linate to London City on 30 January 2018, due to leave at 17.05 local time. At 16.05 the captain, who was not yet on duty and not at his place of work, reported that he was unwell; a medical services consultancy found him unfit to fly. No replacement could be found in time and the flight was cancelled. The Liptons were rebooked and arrived about 8.45 pm, just over two and a half hours late. They claimed €250 (about £220); the airline refused to pay.
A deputy district judge accepted the airline’s argument that the illness, which began off duty, was an extraordinary circumstance, and a circuit judge in Portsmouth dismissed the Liptons’ first appeal. In March 2021 the Court of Appeal ([2021] EWCA Civ 454) allowed their appeal. BA Cityflyer then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the Civil Aviation Authority intervened.
The question
Is the sudden illness of a pilot an extraordinary circumstance, and does it matter whether he fell ill on or off duty? And which law governs a claim that arose before Brexit but is decided afterwards?
What the court decided
- The Supreme Court (Lord Sales and Lady Rose, with whom Lady Simler agreed; Lord Burrows and Lord Lloyd-Jones agreeing on this issue) dismissed the airline’s appeal. The captain’s illness did not fall within the extraordinary circumstances defence in Article 5(3).
- The captain’s attendance for work is an inherent part of the airline’s operating system. It does not matter whether he fell ill an hour before he clocked on or half an hour afterwards. The court expressly agreed with the Court of Appeal’s analysis in Jet2 v Huzar.
- Because the regulation is meant to give standardised compensation and most claims should be decided on the papers, an airline should not be allowed to embark on a complex analysis of precisely when, why or how a staff member became ill.
- On Brexit, the court held that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to apply the version of the regulation as amended by the 2019 EU exit regulations: the law in force when the events happened applies. The majority held that a right to compensation that arose before the end of 2020 was carried into UK law as retained EU law under section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, in the form of the EU text. Lord Lloyd-Jones disagreed on that point, holding that EU law itself still governs such claims. The majority said this part of its reasoning did not affect the outcome.
Summarised from the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.
What it means for you
Crew sickness is not an excuse under UK261, whether the crew member fell ill at work or at home. This is now settled by the UK’s highest court, and the Court of Justice reached the same result for EU261 in TAP v flightright (2023).
For a flight disrupted before 2021, a UK court applies the regulation as it stood in EU law at the time, not the later UK-amended version. For later flights, UK261 applies.
The Supreme Court also endorsed Jet2 v Huzar on technical faults, which strengthens that case too.
Read more: Extraordinary circumstances · Cancelled flight compensation · Crew shortages and sickness · UK261 explained.
Status in the UK
A decision of the UK Supreme Court, binding on all courts below it.
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
- TAP v flightright – Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary
- Airhelp v SAS – Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- McDonagh v Ryanair – Care is owed even in extraordinary circumstances
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- Wallentin-Hermann – Technical problems are normally the airline’s risk; the two-part test
Sources
- Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24 (judgment of 10 July 2024) – The National Archives – Find Case Law
We check every rule against the sources above. Spotted an error? Tell us – see our editorial policy.