Airline prevails in High Court over passenger refund dispute

In a ruling delivered on 3 July 2025, the Danish High Court ruled in favor of a major airline, overturning a lower court’s decision in a dispute over a passenger refund claim brought by a claim management company (CMC). The Court confirmed that the airline had discharged its payment obligation by refunding the amount to the same payment card used for the original booking.

The case originated when passengers cancelled their trip and requested a refund. The airline processed the refund by transferring the funds to the online travel agency (OTA) that had facilitated the booking - an intermediary acting on behalf of the passengers. Nonetheless, the passengers subsequently assigned the claim to a CMC, which pursued the matter in the district court and initially obtained a favorable ruling.

On appeal, however, the High Court found that the CMC, could and should have investigated - both prior to filing the lawsuit and during proceedings in the lower court - whether the passengers had authorized the airline to make payment to the OTA, and whether such payment had in fact been executed. The airline substantiated its position by submitting evidence from the Skyspeed Reservation Manager system, documenting that the refund had indeed been processed to the designated intermediary.

The High Court held that the payment was made with releasing effect (“frigørende virkning”) in accordance with Danish law, reaffirming established precedent from the Supreme Court. Under this principle, payment made to an intermediary authorized by the creditor - here, the OTA acting on the passengers’ behalf - is considered legally effective and discharges the debtor’s obligation.

 The CMC was ordered to pay the airline’s legal costs for both instances.

The ruling highlights the importance of transparency and proper documentation in refund processes involving third-party intermediaries. It also serves as a reminder to CMCs to carefully assess whether the debtor is, in fact, still liable - particularly in cases where the refund has already been issued to an authorized agent. Acting in good faith, as the airline demonstrably did, remains a strong legal safeguard.

The airline was represented before the High Court by Attorney-at-law/Partner Henning Romme-Mølby