TravelMole
Air

Ryanair plays down impact of delay compensation ruling

Monday, 24 August 20153 min read

Ryanair is insisting Friday’s Manchester County Court ruling over flight delay compensation will cost it less than £5 million.

As part of a long-running legal battle, a Judge ruled that Ryanair must pay compensation to two passengers – Goel and Trivedi – for flight delays which happened five years and eight months ago.

Ryanair said it would appeal the ruling, insisting claims should be made within two years and that a six-year time limit for submitting delay compensation claims is both ‘unnecessary and unreasonable’.

It added in a statement: "Since less than 1% of Ryanair flights are delayed over three hours and since more than 90% of passengers make a valid claim within Ryanair’s contractual two-year period, there is a tiny potential group of passengers who may wish to submit a claim between two and six years after the date of their flight delay.

"Accordingly, Ryanair estimates that even if its appeal in this matter is ultimately unsuccessful, its potential liability will not be material and is likely to be less than €5 million."

The decision follows an earlier Supreme Court ruling in the case of Dawson v Thomson Airways which also said passengers in England and Wales have up to six years to make a claim.

Bott & Co solicitors, which acted for the passengers in both cases and in a third case against Jet2, said it suspects the matter won’t end there.

"We fully expect the airlines to continue to fight these cases but we are prepared to hold them to account in each and every instance where the law says compensation is payable, and with the courts continuing to find on behalf of consumers we’ve real cause to be optimistic that passengers will receive the compensation they are entitled to," said Bott & Co flight delay lawyer Kevin Clarke.

"Three times the airline industry has asked this question in major court cases, and the courts have always found on behalf of passengers."

"Ryanair says that a six-year limit is unnecessary and unreasonable but that fundamentally misses the point; it is not for them to decide, it is for the courts to decide and the courts have resolutely confirmed you have six years once again."