The Bottom Line
- Vague Claims Are Not a Defence: Claiming “extraordinary circumstances” to avoid liability requires concrete, unambiguous proof. Simply stating a reason, like bad weather, and providing complex operational data is not enough if it doesn’t clearly support the claim.
- The Burden of Proof is High: The onus is on the company to prove that an event was both extraordinary and unavoidable. This ruling shows that courts will scrutinize the evidence presented and will not simply take a company’s word for it.
- Knock-On Effects Need a Solid Foundation: If a company argues that a service failure was caused by a prior disruption (a “knock-on effect”), it must first provide sufficient proof for that initial disruption. Without it, the entire defence collapses.
The Details
This case involved two passengers whose flight from London Luton to Amsterdam was cancelled by EasyJet. Relying on EU Regulation 261/2004, which protects air passenger rights, they sought the standard compensation of €250 each. The airline refused to pay, arguing the cancellation was due to “extraordinary circumstances”, a defence that exempts an airline from the obligation to compensate. This is a common defence, but as this ruling highlights, it is one that requires more than just a simple assertion.
The airline’s defence rested on a chain of events. It argued that the aircraft intended for the passengers’ flight was part of a rotation that had been disrupted earlier in the day. Specifically, the preceding flight from Amsterdam to Luton was cancelled due to alleged bad weather conditions at Luton Airport. EasyJet submitted internal “Flight Details” and a Eurocontrol network operator overview as evidence. The core of their argument was that this initial, weather-related cancellation created a knock-on effect that made the passengers’ subsequent flight cancellation unavoidable.
The District Court of Noord-Holland rejected the airline’s argument, finding the evidence provided to be insufficient. The judge ruled that the documents did not clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that bad weather was the actual cause of the initial flight cancellation. The court found the airline failed to adequately substantiate its claim, meaning its defence of “extraordinary circumstances” was not proven. Because the airline could not prove the root cause of the disruption, the court did not even need to consider whether those circumstances would legally carry over to the passengers’ flight. The airline was ordered to pay the full compensation, plus interest and costs.
Source
District Court of Noord-Holland
