Victory in the High Court: No liability for bird strike on previous rotation

Attorney-at-law/Partner Henning Romme-Mølby has successfully represented an international airline in an important decision from the High Court, reinforcing the interpretation of “extraordinary circumstances” under EU Regulation EC 261/2004. Decision was published the 17. july 2025.

The case concerned a flight from Billund to Alicante that was delayed by just over three hours. The delay was caused by a bird strike that had occurred earlier the same day on a different route involving the aircraft originally scheduled to operate the disputed flight. Passengers, represented by a claim management company, sought compensation and argued that there was no sufficient causal link. They also contended that, given the time gap, the airline had failed to take all reasonable measures to mitigate the delay.

The High Court rejected those arguments and ruled that the airline was not liable to pay compensation, stating:

“A bird strike requiring mandatory inspection of the aircraft constitutes an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation.”

The Court further clarified that this applies even when the bird strike occurs on a previous rotation:

“This also applies where the bird strike causes delays to subsequent flights using the same aircraft, provided those flights have a close operational connection.”

Causal Connection and Reasonable Measures

The Court accepted that the aircraft in question had originally been scheduled to operate both the inbound and outbound flights between Alicante and Billund. After the bird strike on an earlier flight, a different aircraft was repositioned to perform the round-trip instead.

“[The airline] has demonstrated that it took all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize the delay by deploying aircraft [registration number] to operate the disputed route.”

Importantly, the Court emphasized:

“The flight was carried out at the earliest opportunity, and no alternative connections between Billund and Alicante were available on the day in question.”

This confirms that the absence of rerouting options - combined with proactive aircraft substitution - satisfies the requirement of taking “all reasonable measures” under Article 5(3), after the originally planned departure time.

A Clear Win for Proportionality and Practicality

The decision provides welcome clarity regarding knock-on delays and the standard for documenting reasonable operational responses.

Henning Romme-Mølby is pleased to have secured this important victory for our client - and for the wider aviation industry. The judgment contributes to a more balanced and practical understanding of passenger rights in cases involving unforeseen operational disruptions beyond the airline’s control.

Attorney-at-law/Partner Henning Romme-Mølby represented the airline in the High Court.