Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd.pdf

vanakkam makkal

1. Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd [2014] UKSC 15

a. Facts











Mr. Stott, a wheelchair user, booked a flight with Thomas Cook from the UK to Zante, Greece. However, during the flight, Thomas Cook did not
provide the necessary seating and assistance he needed, causing him considerable discomfort and distress. As a result, Mr. Stott sought
compensation for emotional harm under the UK's Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

2. b. Legal Issue












The key legal question was whether Mr. Stott could seek compensation for emotional distress under the UK's Disability Discrimination Act or if
his claim was blocked by the Montreal Convention 1999, which regulates international air travel.

3. c. Court Decision












The UK Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Stott's claim was blocked by the Montreal Convention. The Court decided that the Convention is the only
legal option for incidents during international flights, covering boarding, the flight itself, and disembarking. Since the Montreal Convention doesn't
allow compensation for emotional distress, Mr. Stott's claim under UK law was not valid.

4. d. Significance







This case confirmed that the Montreal Convention is the sole legal framework for claims related to international air travel, taking precedence over
domestic laws. It demonstrated that the Convention applies broadly, covering various situations during a flight, even without physical injury. The
ruling clarified that passengers' rights under the Convention are limited to specific damages like bodily injury or delays, excluding emotional
distress or discrimination claims.

5. e. Conclusion











Stott v Thomas Cook illustrates how UK courts interpret and apply the Montreal Convention as the exclusive remedy for international air
passenger claims. It serves as a significant precedent in understanding the interaction between international conventions and domestic law in the
context of air travel.