Millions of UK travellers who have seen their flights cancelled could be entitled to compensation after a landmark court ruling.
As it stands, you can claim up to £520 in the UK if your flight has been cancelled.
Martin Lewis has issued a warning on the matter, with those who have had flights axed not automatically guaranteed a successful claim.
Now, a new ruling in the UK Supreme Court has meant that the reasons for why you can make a successful claim have been widened following an 'extraordinary circumstance' u-turn.
Advert
Two UK flyers, Kenneth and Linda Lipton, had taken BA Cityflyer (a subsidiary of British Airways) to court after their claim for compensation was rejected. Their flight was axed after their pilot suddenly became ill before work.
The airline ruled that this did not count as an 'extraordinary circumstance' in which the airline was to take the blame for the cancellation.
But this week, five Supreme Court judges ruled against the British Airways company. This was after the court ruled in favour of the Liptons, whose flight from Milan Linate Airport in Italy to London City Airport was axed last minute.
Advert
BA Cityflyer tried to find a replacement for the sick pilot but failed, resulting in the flight being cancelled. They were booked on to another flight for free, arriving back in London two and a half hours later than originally expected.
Under EU compensation laws, the Liptons said they were owed £220 in compensation due to the cancellation and subsequent delay.
Now, one flight compensation expert says 'tens of thousands' of British travellers could be owed cash due to similar situations to the one experienced by the Liptons. It could result in compensation worth millions.
Anton Radchenko, CEO of AirAdvisor, is behind the fresh warning having already delivered £52 million in compensation for air passengers. Radchenko said: "This ruling is a huge victory for airline passengers. Previously, if a staff member being taken ill resulted in delays or cancellations airlines would claim these situations were ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and would not have to compensate passengers for disruption to their journey.
Advert
"Now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, this changes. If your flight is delayed by more than three hours, or cancelled due to staff illness, resulting in your journey being delayed by three hours, passengers may be due between £220 and £520, depending on the distance of their flight.
"In its statement yesterday, the Supreme Court suggested that ‘tens of thousands’ of travellers each year are affected by situations like Mr and Mrs Lipton’s. This could mean a compensation cash boost of potentially around £10 million a year for British airline passengers, as a result of this ruling.
"We advise any clients affected by disruption to their journeys to start the process of claiming compensation with a flight compensation calculation."
Advert
The ruling from the Supreme Court said that 'if the pilot drinks so as to be unfit to report for work and the flight is cancelled, then the reason for the cancellation is inherent in the airline's activity and operations'.
It added: "The same is also true of the need for the captain and other cabin crew to ensure that they are properly rested during stopovers. They have numerous obligations both to their employers and to the public during those periods.
"These are all inherent in the carrier's activity and operations and if, for whatever reason, they are unable to attend for work as a result of something going awry during those rest periods, whether it is their fault or not, that failure to attend is not an extraordinary circumstance."
Advert
In a statement, Mr and Mrs Lipton, from Kent, said: “We see this as not just a win for ourselves but a victory for people who are prepared to fight for common sense and justice against corporate behemoths who have access to every resource. We never wanted to be in this position but felt we had little choice but to continue our legal case given the stance of the carrier all the way through this.
“Their insistence to continue this battle to the highest court in the land has now met with the correct conclusion and our significantly smaller, but no less wily team has succeeded against all odds. We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to the barristers who represented us and Irwin Mitchell who were tremendous in ensuring our route, whilst painful, was informed at every step of the way, even when it appeared we were able to fight no longer. However, we saw it through, and we won.”
Tom Earnshaw