Dr. Simone Lamont-Black

• Dr. Simone Lamont-Black (née Schnitzer) qualified as civil lawyer in Germany where she practised law as Rechtsanwältin for several years and obtained her Doctorate in law from Augsburg University with summa cum laude before moving to England. There she worked for many years as lecturer at Northumbria University in Newcastle before joining Edinburgh Law School in 2010.

  She specialises in the law of international trade and carriage of goods and has a keen interest in international commercial dispute resolution, being also a CEDR Accredited Mediator, a Member of the Association of Arbitral Women, having acted as arbitratorinter alia at the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot Competition and having founded the Edinburgh Vis Pre-Moot.

  Simone researches and publishes mainly in the areas of international carriage of goods and transport law. She has also authored and co-authored several books, inter alia with Paul Bugden the second and third editions of Bugden & Lamont-Black, Goods in Transit, published with Sweet & Maxwell as part of their British Shipping Laws Series.

   

  Scots courts on budget airline practices: jurisdiction, care and compensation

   

  Key words: air passenger rights; Montreal Convention; EC Regulation 261/2004; jurisdiction; damages, compensation and reimbursement

   This conference paper discusses case-law of the Scottish courts on specific budget airline practices and respective arguments on jurisdiction.

  The paper is set against the facts of Caldwell v EasyJet¹, a key Scots case under both the Montreal Convention for International Carriage by Air 1999² and also the EC Regulation on compensation and assistance for denied boarding or cancellation of flights (EC Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance Regulation), EC Regulation 261/2004³. Here the Scottish courts had to decide on a number of significant issues:

  Which courts had jurisdiction, where a number of “separate” flights were sold in order to enable the traveller to reach their destination. Could the airline treat every flight as a separate contract with separate jurisdictional consequences?

  What was the interaction between the Montreal Convention and the EC Passenger Rights Regulation?

  A further issue was the validity and reach of standard terms and conditions obliging the passenger to present themselves on time at the departure gate even in situation where, where there was little or no assistance available to passengers at the airport to timely allow them to check-in or drop their baggage and clear security, customs and passport control to reach the gate in time. Did the passengers have a claim for damages for breach of contract? Or alternatively, could this lack of assistance be classed as denied boarding under the EC Regulation, thus giving rights for compensation and reimbursement?

  After setting out the facts the paper will explain the legal background and the reasoning of the court and suggest the likely approaches of the Scots courts on matters which, this time, had not stood for decision.

   

  1 2015 S.L.T. (Sh Ct) 223; 2015 G.W.D. 34-546

  2 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, 2242 U.N.T.S. 350 (hereinafter Montreal Convention)

  3 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ L46, 17.2.2004, p 1) (hereafter EC Passenger Rights Regulation)