THE BOTTOM LINE
- Third-Party Tech Failures Can Be Your Shield: A major, widespread IT outage at a third-party supplier (in this case, a cybersecurity firm) can qualify as an extraordinary circumstance, exempting an airline from paying compensation for resulting flight delays under EU Regulation 261/2004.
- A Chain of Crises Strengthens the Defense: A cumulative series of distinct extraordinary events—such as an IT failure followed by a bird strike on a replacement aircraft and Air Traffic Control restrictions—can create a robust legal defense against liability for a single, lengthy delay.
- Reasonable Measures Are Still Key: The airline successfully argued it took all reasonable measures by promptly chartering a replacement aircraft. This proactive step was crucial, as carriers must always demonstrate efforts to mitigate disruptions, even when the root cause is beyond their control.
THE DETAILS
A recent ruling from the District Court of The Hague provides a significant clarification on the scope of extraordinary circumstances in the aviation sector. The case involved a TUI flight from Preveza, Greece, to Amsterdam, which arrived nearly five hours behind schedule. The claim for compensation was not triggered by a typical mechanical fault but by a cascade of events, starting with a massive global IT outage at a US cybersecurity firm the day before the flight. This external tech failure crippled systems worldwide, grounding the aircraft TUI had originally scheduled. The court accepted that such a widespread, external incident was not inherent to the airline’s normal operations and was therefore an extraordinary circumstance.
In response to the IT outage, TUI chartered a replacement aircraft to operate the flight. However, this backup plan was also beset by problems. During its positioning flight to Amsterdam, the replacement aircraft suffered a bird strike, which necessitated a mandatory safety inspection upon landing. Following the inspection, both the departure from Amsterdam and the subsequent departure from Preveza were further delayed by decisions from Air Traffic Control. This created a domino effect, where the initial force majeure event was compounded by several subsequent, separate extraordinary circumstances.
The court ultimately sided with the airline, concluding that the entire chain of events fell under the umbrella of extraordinary circumstances. It reasoned that since the initial IT failure, the subsequent bird strike, and the Air Traffic Control mandates were all beyond TUI’s control, the airline could not be held liable for the cumulative delay. The key legal takeaway is that a series of qualifying events can be linked together to form a cohesive defense. TUI’s duty was to take reasonable measures—which it did by hiring another plane—but it was not required to compensate for a delay ultimately caused by a perfect storm of external, unavoidable problems.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court of The Hague)
