Permission to appeal decisions by UK Supreme Court
Flight delay compensation; Pay TV; retailers in administration
31 October 2014
The Supreme Court has today (31 Oct) announced its decision on three applications for permission to appeal of particular public interest, highlighted below. Each of these decisions was made by a panel of three Supreme Court Justices following a review of the relevant written submissions.
1. Jet2.com Limited (Appellant) v Huzar (Respondent) and Thomson Airways Limited (Appellant) v Dawson (Respondent)
The Supreme Court has refused applications by Jet2.com and Thomson Airways to appeal the Court of Appeal of England and Wales' decisions in two cases about the airlines' liability to pay compensation after travel delays.
The legal issues at stake were (in the Jet 2 appeal) whether an unforeseeable technical problem resulting in a delayed flight amounts to "extraordinary circumstances" for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004; and (in the Thomson appeal) whether the applicable limitation period for bringing a claim for compensation under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 is 2 years, pursuant to the Montreal Convention, or 6 years, pursuant to the Limitation Act 1980.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear either airline's appeal and the Court of Appeal judgment in each matter therefore stands:
The substantive text of the Supreme Court's Order reads:
"The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused in Thomson because the application does not raise an arguable point of law; [and] permission to appeal be refused in Jet2.com because the application does not raise a point of law of general public importance and, in relation to the point of European Union law said to be raised by or in response to the application, it is not necessary to request the Court of Justice to give any ruling, because the Court's existing jurisprudence already provides sufficient answer."
2. British Telecommunications PLC (BT) and others (Respondents) v British Sky Broadcasting Limited (Appellant)
The Supreme Court has refused BSkyB's application to appeal the Court of Appeal of England and Wales' decision in a case about Pay TV and the broadcasting rights for major sporting events.
The legal issues at stake were whether Ofcom's powers ("jurisdiction") include the imposition of licence conditions to regulate the distribution of licensed services; and what standard of review is to be applied by the Court of Appeal when determining the correctness of conclusions reached by a specialist tribunal.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear BSkyB's appeal and the Court of Appeal judgment therefore stands:
The substantive text of the Supreme Court's Order reads:
"The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law. On [the first issue] the Court of Appeal was right to find that there is jurisdiction. [The second issue] is a factual one not suitable for determination in the Supreme Court."
3. Game Retail Ltd (Appellant) v Pillar Denton Ltd and others (Respondents)
The Supreme Court has refused Game's application to appeal the Court of Appeal of England and Wales' decision in a case about whether companies entering administration should be able to continue trading while defaulting on rent payments. A number of commercial landlords successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that tenants must make payments at the rate of the rent for the duration of any period during which they retain possession for the benefit of the winding up or administration. Such payments are payable as expenses of the winding up or administration.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear Game's appeal and the Court of Appeal judgment therefore stands:
The substantive text of the Supreme Court's Order reads:
"The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal."
Other results of the most recent round of permission to appeal applications will be published in the next week or so on the Court's website.