Legal Research
Cases
Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd

Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd

Case [2014] UKSC 15 5 March 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Summary

Hilary Term
[2014] UKSC 15
On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 66

JUDGMENT

Stott (Appellant) v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Limited (Respondent)

before

Lord Neuberger, President
Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Reed
Lord Hughes
Lord Toulson

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

5 March 2014

Heard on 20 November 2013

Appellant Robin Allen QC Martin Chamberlain QC (Instructed by Equality & Human Rights Commission)		Respondent John Kimbell Tom Bird (Instructed by JMC Legal Services Department)

Intervener (Secretary of State for Transport) Daniel Beard QC Kassie Smith QC (Instructed by Treasury Solicitors)

LORD TOULSON, (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree)

Introduction

This appeal arises from a sorry case of a serious failure by an air tour operator to see that proper provision was made for the needs of a disabled passenger, contrary to the requirements of the Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1895) ("the UK Disability Regulations").

The UK Disability Regulations implement Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air ("the EC Disability Regulation").

The issue is whether a court may award damages for a claimant's discomfort and injury to feelings caused by a breach of the UK Disability Regulations. The conclusion of the courts below was that any such award is precluded by the Montreal Convention, as adopted in the EU by the Montreal Regulation (or, to use its full title, "Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, as amended by Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 889/2002").

The appeal has been brought with the backing of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and it has the additional support of the Secretary of State for Transport as an intervener.

The parties

Mr Christopher Stott is paralysed from the shoulders down and is a permanent wheel chair user. He has double incontinence and uses a catheter. When travelling by air, he depends on his wife to manage his incontinence since he cannot move round the aircraft. He also relies on her to help him to eat and to change his sitting position.

Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd is a well known tour operator which provides overseas package holidays and flights to many destinations. It is an air carrier with an operating licence granted by a Member State of the EU and therefore subject to the obligations imposed on Community air carriers by the EC Disability Regulation.

The facts

I take the following summary of the facts from the judgment of the trial judge, Recorder Atherton, delivered on 19 January 2011 in the Manchester County Court:

"4. On 12 September 2008 Mr Stott booked with the defendant to fly from East Midlands Airport to Zante, departing 22 September and returning 29 September 2008. Soon after making the booking on the internet he telephoned the defendant's helpline to advise that he had…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd

Details

Case: [2014] UKSC 15
Decision Date