Successful outcome in the High Court: Airline prevails again

We are pleased to share that our client, a major European airline, has once again prevailed in court - this time before the High Court - following an earlier victory before the District Court.

The appellant, a claim management company, appealed the District Court judgment, and the High Court has now fully upheld the decision, confirming that our client took all reasonable measures to operate the flight despite severe weather disruptions on the day in question. 

The flight was delayed by 4 hours and 25 minutes, and the appellant argued that the airline should have rebooked the passengers onto an earlier flight from the same departure airport, although arriving at a different airport serving the same city.

High Court reasoning

The Court conducted a concrete, evidence-based assessment and emphasized several key points:

The aircraft had been forced to divert due to storm conditions that exceeded the operational minima for a safe landing, and it was undisputed that these constituted extraordinary circumstances under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004. The decisive question was therefore not the cause of the delay, but whether the airline had taken all reasonable measures to mitigate it. 

The Court placed considerable weight on evidence showing that, once weather conditions improved, the airline immediately made its aircraft, crew, and handling resources available to operate the flight.

 As a result, all 189 passengers departed at the earliest operationally and safely possible time. 

Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that no earlier same-day departures existed to the booked destination (BGY) - neither by our client nor by any other carrier.

The High Court therefore rejected the argument that rerouting via another nearby airport in the Milan region (e.g., MXP or LIN) constituted a “reasonable measure,” noting that such a theoretical option was neither feasible nor required in light of the circumstances and well-established EU case law (including C-74/19 and C-826/19).

Conclusion

The High Court accordingly concluded that the airline had:

✔ acted appropriately in the circumstances,

✔ taken all reasonable measures, and

✔ operated the flight at the first available opportunity without imposing unreasonable burdens on its operations.

The compensation claim was therefore dismissed, and the District Court’s judgment was upheld.

Comments

What stands out in the judgment is that the High Court - just like the District Court - carried out a meticulous review of the evidence and placed decisive weight on:

• the fact that the weather conditions were genuinely incompatible with a safe landing

• the absence of any realistic opportunity to transport passengers earlier to the originally booked destination, and

• the lack of practical or legally required rerouting options to other airports in the Milan region.

The Court makes clear that “all reasonable measures” does not equate to every hypothetical possibility, but to those measures that are operationally feasible, safety-compliant, and do not impose an unreasonable burden on the airline.

This judgment is therefore an important clarification - not only for this case, but for the wider balance between passenger rights and the operational realities of aviation.

At Romme Advokatfirma, we view the decision as a clear reminder that:

• thorough and precise documentation,

• a realistic understanding of operational constraints, and

• strict compliance with the applicable legal framework

are essential when assessing the burden of proof under Article 5(3).

And perhaps most importantly: safety always comes first - also in the courtroom.

Attorney-at-law Henning Romme-Mølby represented the airline before the High Court.