THE BOTTOM LINE
- A hidden manufacturing defect in a new aircraft can be considered an “extraordinary circumstance,” potentially exempting airlines from paying compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004.
- The burden of proof is high. Airlines must provide detailed evidence showing the defect originated with the manufacturer and was not discoverable through normal maintenance or pre-flight checks.
- This ruling distinguishes between a latent defect from manufacturing and a premature component failure. The former is treated as an external event, while the latter is often considered an inherent operational risk the airline must bear.
THE DETAILS
In a significant decision for the aviation industry, the District Court of Noord-Holland has ruled in favour of Corendon Dutch Airlines, dismissing a claim for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004. The case was brought by claims agency AirHelp on behalf of two passengers whose flight was delayed by over three hours. Corendon successfully argued that the delay was caused by an “extraordinary circumstance”—specifically, a hidden manufacturing defect in a brand-new Boeing aircraft that had been delivered just over a month before the flight.
The court’s reasoning hinged on the nature of the technical fault. The problem, a loss of hydraulic pressure, was traced to an improperly secured coupling that was part of the aircraft’s original assembly by the manufacturer. The court was convinced by the airline’s detailed explanation that this defect was not detectable during the standard acceptance flight or subsequent routine checks. It only became apparent after the coupling gradually loosened over several flights. This was deemed a crucial distinction from typical technical issues, which are generally considered inherent to an airline’s operations. The court classified the defect as an external event, placing its origin outside the airline’s control and sphere of activity.
This judgment provides important clarification by distinguishing the facts from the influential European Court of Justice ruling in Van der Lans. In that case, the premature failure of a component was deemed an inherent operational risk. Here, the Dutch court found that a defect present from the moment of delivery is not a matter of premature wear-and-tear but a flaw originating with a third party—the manufacturer. Having established the “extraordinary circumstance,” the court also confirmed that the airline took all reasonable measures to mitigate the delay. Evidence showed Corendon attempted to source a replacement aircraft from other carriers before ultimately rescheduling the flight with its own fleet, which was deemed the fastest viable solution.
SOURCE
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
