Chelluri v Air India Ltd: Affirming the 'Single Booking' Principle under Regulation 261/2004

Introduction

In the case of Chelluri v Air India Ltd ([2021] EWCA Civ 1953), the appellant, Ms. Kanaka Durga Chelluri, challenged the applicability of EU Regulation 261/2004 concerning compensation for flight delays. The dispute arose due to a significant delay in one segment of her multi-leg journey from Kansas City, Missouri, USA, to Bengaluru, India, with a connecting flight from London Heathrow to Mumbai, India. The central legal question focused on whether the regulation applies when a single booking comprises multiple legs, with one of the legs experiencing delays within EU/UK jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court, affirming that EU Regulation 261/2004 does not apply to Ms. Chelluri's case. The judgment centered on the principle established in the CJEU's Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] Bus LR 1366, which dictates that a single booking comprising multiple flight legs must be treated as a whole for regulatory purposes. Since the entire journey did not commence from an EU/UK airport under the relevant jurisdiction of the regulation, Ms. Chelluri's claim for compensation was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on established case law, particularly the Wegener case, which serves as a cornerstone for interpreting the applicability of Regulation 261/2004 in multi-leg journeys. Additional cases referenced include:

• Gahan v Emirates (2017): Reinforced the 'single booking' principle, emphasizing that all legs under a single reservation are to be treated collectively.
• CS and others v Cesk Aerolinie AS [2019] Bus LR 1893: Confirmed that Regulation 261/2004 applies based on the initial departure point and the collective nature of the booking.
• OI v Air Nostrum: Highlighted that even if delays occur within EU airspace, the single booking principle limits the scope of claims.
• Sturgeon v Condor-Flugdienst GmbH & Anr and Blanche v Easy Jet Airline Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 69: Explored the boundaries of compensation claims under exceptional circumstances.

These precedents collectively establish a framework where the regulation's applicability hinges on the booking's origin and its treatment as a unified transport operation.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on interpreting Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation 261/2004, which defines the territorial gateway for the regulation's applicability:

• Territorial Gateway (Article 3(1)(a)): Applies when a flight departs from an EU/UK airport.
• Carrier Gateway (Article 3(1)(b)): Applies when an EU/UK carrier operates the flight, regardless of departure location.

In this case, since the journey originated outside the EU/UK and was booked as a single reservation, the delay in the third leg (within Heathrow) did not trigger the regulation's compensation provisions. The court emphasized that the regulation considers the journey as a whole, not its individual segments, thereby limiting jurisdiction based on the booking's initial departure point.

The appellant's arguments attempted to challenge the interpretation of Wegener, suggesting a broader reading of Article 3(1)(a). However, the court maintained that adherence to established case law is paramount, especially when multiple authorities have consistently reinforced the 'single booking' principle.

Impact

The decision in Chelluri v Air India Ltd has significant implications for future claims under Regulation 261/2004 involving multi-leg journeys. It reinforces the necessity for passengers to assess the jurisdictional gateways of their bookings meticulously. For air carriers, the judgment provides clarity on the limits of liability, particularly in cases where only certain segments of a journey fall within EU/UK airspace.

Moreover, the affirmation of the 'single booking' principle ensures consistency in how compensation claims are processed, potentially reducing frivolous claims based on partial journey delays that do not meet the regulatory criteria.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Regulation 261/2004

An EU regulation that establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellations, or long delays.

Article 3(1)(a) - Territorial Gateway

Specifies that the regulation applies to passengers departing from an airport within the EU/UK, regardless of the carrier.

Article 3(1)(b) - Carrier Gateway

Extends the regulation's applicability to passengers departing from non-EU/UK airports if the operating carrier is an EU/UK carrier and the flight lands within the EU/UK.

Single Booking Principle

The legal concept that multiple flight segments booked under a single reservation are treated as a unified journey for the purposes of applying compensation regulations.

Exceptional Circumstances (Article 5(3))

Situations where airlines are not liable to pay compensation due to factors beyond their control, such as severe weather events or air traffic control decisions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Chelluri v Air India Ltd firmly upholds the established legal framework governing flight delay compensations under Regulation 261/2004. By reaffirming the 'single booking' principle and adhering to the interpretations set forth in the Wegener case, the court ensures consistency and predictability in the application of passenger protection laws. This judgment underscores the importance of understanding the territorial and carrier gateways when booking multi-leg journeys and sets a clear precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.