THE BOTTOM LINE
- Solid proof of payment is a complete defense against duplicate EU261 compensation claims, even if minor administrative errors occurred during the transaction.
- Claims agencies may pursue litigation even after compensation has been paid; businesses must maintain robust payment records to challenge these actions effectively.
- Proactively communicating corrections for payment errors, like a wrong reference number, can significantly strengthen a company’s legal position and demonstrate good faith.
THE DETAILS
In a recent case before the Dutch courts, a group of passengers, represented by a claims agency, sought statutory compensation from EasyJet for a cancelled flight under EU Regulation 261/2004. Unlike typical defenses citing extraordinary circumstances, the airline presented a straightforward argument: the compensation had already been paid. This case serves as a critical reminder for businesses that meticulous financial record-keeping can be the most effective tool in dispute resolution.
The airline’s defense rested on clear evidence. It produced a proof of payment and internal system screenshots demonstrating that the full compensation amount had been transferred to the passengers’ claims agency well before the lawsuit was filed. Crucially, the airline acknowledged a minor error in the transaction—an incorrect case reference number. However, it also proved that it had proactively emailed the claims agency to inform them of the mistake and clarify which claim the payment was for. This combination of proof of payment and transparent communication formed the foundation of its defense.
The court found the airline’s evidence compelling and ruled that the compensation obligation had been met. The judge noted that the incorrect payment reference did not invalidate the payment, especially since the airline had proactively clarified the error. The court placed the onus on the claims agency, stating that if it was confused by the payment, it should have returned the funds. By retaining the money while still proceeding with the legal claim, the agency undermined its own case. As a result, the passengers’ claim was dismissed, and they were ordered to cover the airline’s legal costs.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland
