Raphael Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways (13 June 2006) - The English High Court has recently confirmed the principles relating to assessment of damages in a denied boarding claim. The claimant was entitled to recover reasonable hotel expenses, taxis, telephone calls and meals but not for mental trauma or relating to a robbery occurring during the enforced extension to his stay in Nigeria.

The claimant had purchased a return ticket from England to Nigeria and was due to return to the UK on 13 May 2004. However, he was denied boarding, accused of having a fake passport. The claimant alleged that this accusation was made after he refused to pay a bribe to the check-in staff. His friends, who had accompanied him to the airport, had to stay overnight in Port Harcourt because it was unsafe for them to return home until the next day.

The claimant was not permitted to board a return flight to England until 25 May 2004, and was assaulted and robbed in the meantime. Following his return to the UK, he alleged that he experienced mental trauma and difficulty sleeping.

The airline admitted it was in breach of contract but there was dispute as to the level and heads of recoverable damages. No claim was made under EC Regulation 261. The Court held that the claimant was entitled to his reasonable hotel expenses and restaurant bills, telephone calls, postage and taxis incurred during the time of the enforced extension to his stay in Nigeria. He was not, however, entitled to claim for expenses incurred by his fiancée whom he was unable to meet in England on 14 May as previously planned because these expenses did not flow from the breach of contract. Neither could he recover for the expenses of his friends for their overnight stay in Port Harcourt as that loss was too remote.

The Court accepted that damages for breach of contract could include damages in relation to mental suffering, provided that the suffering was directly related to physical inconvenience or discomfort. However, the claimant had not alleged physical discomfort, nor could he in the light of the arrangements for his accommodation, subsistence and transport. Furthermore, it was not in the contemplation of the parties that the mere fact of not permitting a passenger to board the aircraft would lead to a breakdown in health. There was no connection between the denial of boarding and the robbery and, accordingly, damages were not recoverable.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.