Source: https://www.bottonline.co.uk/blog/dawson-v-thomson-airways
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 11:59:23+00:00

Document:
The Hearing took place between 10:30am on Tuesday 13th May and 4pm on Wednesday 14th May 2014, with Robert Lawson QC representing Thomson Airways Ltd (“Thomson”) and Akhil Shah QC on behalf of the passenger, James Dawson (“Dawson”).
Thomson will say that according to English law the time-limit is 2 years, however Dawson argues that it is 6 years.
In other words, the Court said that all claims arising out of carriage of persons by air should be subject to the Montreal Convention.
It follows that as a claim for a delay under Regulation 261 relates to carriage by air, then according to Sidhu it must be subject to the 2 year time-limit imposed by the Montreal Convention.
Thomson stress that the wording in Sidhu is quite clear in that it encompasses ‘all’ liability of the carrier for delay, i.e. regardless of whether the claim is for damages or otherwise. The Court of Appeal appeared to agree with this argument and therefore did not see the need to hear lengthy submissions on the categorisation of a claim brought under article 7 of Regulation 261.
The difficulty however faced by the Court is that the decision in Sidhu is irreconcilably different from the numerous rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) – the highest Court in Europe, which has said on numerous occasions that the provisions of Regulation 261 ‘fall outside the scope’ of the Montreal Convention (See IATA and ELFAA, Sturgeon and Others, Nelson and Others and Moré v KLM).
Dawson will say that the Court of Appeal is bound by those decisions of CJEU, as they overrule the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Sidhu.
In short, regardless of whether the decisions of the CJEU are correct or not, the Court of Appeal is nevertheless bound by those decisions.
In turn, as the CJEU has already said that Regulation 261 falls outside the scope of the Montreal Convention, then the 2 year time-limit imposed by that Convention cannot apply Therefore, the default position is that the time-limit is 6 years as per Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Thomson argue that whilst the Court of Appeal is bound to follow a ruling (or decision) of the CJEU, it is not bound to follow its reasoning. The argument is developed further by stating that there is in fact no CJEU ‘ruling’ concerning the issue of time-limits, i.e. the issue has only been addressed by ‘reasoning.’ As such, the Court of Appeal has the power to disregard the reasoning and simply apply the ruling in Sidhu.
2. Was the CJEU entitled to make such a ruling.
If the CJEU did make a ruling to that affect (as contended by Dawson) and if the CJEU were entitled to make that ruling (Which Thomson accept that they were) then the appeal will fail and Dawson will succeed.
On Friday 31st October the Supreme Court announced it will not allow the airlines to appeal the decisions in Huzar V Jet2 and Dawson V Thomson.
Today airline Jet2.com filed an application to the Supreme Court to appeal the Huzar v Jet2.com case.
How Does The Dawson Ruling Affect Flight Delay Claims?
Today, 19th June, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the Dawson V Thomson Airways case, opening up an additional four years’ worth of claimable flights.
Read more about How Does The Dawson Ruling Affect Flight Delay Claims?

References: CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU