COLIN MATHER AGAINST (FIRST) EASYJET AIRLINE COMPANY LIMITED and (SECOND) DRK HAMBURG MEDISERVICE gGmbH

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff was injured in an accident in 2009 resulting in incomplete T3 paraplegia but continued active employment and frequent air travel. On 15 May 2017, the Plaintiff booked an easyJet flight from Edinburgh to Hamburg and notified the airline of his need for special assistance due to wheelchair use. Upon arrival in Hamburg, while being assisted off the aircraft by personnel employed by the second Defendant (DRK), the Plaintiff was injured when his wheelchair hit a raised edge at the air bridge threshold, causing compound fractures to both legs. The Plaintiff sued the first Defendant (easyJet) for loss, injury, and damage under the contract of carriage governed by the Montreal Convention 1999. The Defendants contested liability, limitation of liability, and contribution. The case proceeded to proof on these issues.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the second Defendant (DRK) acted as an agent of the first Defendant (easyJet) under the Montreal Convention 1999 or as a third party.
2. The extent of easyJet’s liability under the Montreal Convention for the Plaintiff’s injuries sustained during disembarkation.
3. Whether easyJet’s liability is limited under the Convention’s provisions or unlimited due to negligence.
4. The applicability and effect of limitation periods on claims by the Plaintiff and on easyJet’s claim for contribution against DRK.
5. The applicable law governing the claim for contribution between easyJet and DRK.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments

• EasyJet admitted liability in a binding, unqualified manner in a pre-litigation email dated 17 July 2018, which the Plaintiff relied upon to his detriment.
• The person pushing the wheelchair was acting as easyJet’s agent under Article 21(2)(a) of the Montreal Convention, negating any limitation of liability.
• If the agent status was denied, the claim against DRK was based on negligence under German law, which imposes liability for intentional or negligent injury caused by employees.

First Defendant (easyJet) Arguments

• The email of 17 July 2018 only admitted liability as provided by the Convention and did not waive any limitation or other defenses.
• The accident was not due to easyJet’s negligence but solely caused by DRK’s employee, Mr Heinz.
• DRK was contracted by Hamburg Airport, not easyJet, and was not an agent of easyJet.
• If DRK was a third party, easyJet’s liability was limited under the Convention to 113,100 SDR.
• Any claim for contribution against DRK was governed by German law and was time-barred due to late initiation.
• Alternatively, if English law applied, the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 restricted contribution claims to within two years and required a judgment or settlement, which was not present.

Second Defendant (DRK) Arguments

• The accident was caused by Hamburg Airport’s fault, not DRK’s.
• DRK and its employee acted as agents of easyJet under the Montreal Convention and German law, making easyJet liable for the accident.
• EasyJet had a duty to ensure the safety of the Plaintiff during disembarkation, including the air bridge and terminal path.
• Provisions in the conditions of carriage inconsistent with the Convention are null and void.
• The PRM Regulation did not modify or exclude easyJet’s liability under the Convention.
• If liability existed, apportionment between easyJet and DRK should be governed by German law, which bars contribution claims after three years.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first confirmed that the accident occurred during disembarkation, falling within Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention, which imposes strict liability on the carrier for passenger injury during embarkation or disembarkation. The critical question was whether DRK was an agent of easyJet or an independent third party.

Applying an autonomous and purposive interpretation of the Convention, consistent with international jurisprudence, the Court adopted the established test that a party is an agent of the carrier if it performs services "in furtherance of the contract of carriage." DRK, although contracted by Hamburg Airport and not easyJet, provided wheelchair assistance integral to the disembarkation process. This service was one that easyJet would have been required to provide if DRK had not done so.

The Court found that DRK was therefore an agent of easyJet within the meaning of the Convention. Evidence established that the injury was caused by the negligence of DRK’s employee, who failed to exercise proper care in pushing the wheelchair safely over the air bridge ridge. Consequently, easyJet was liable for unlimited damages under Article 21(2)(a) of the Convention, as it failed to prove the injury was not due to its agent’s negligence.

The PRM Regulation, which governs assistance to disabled passengers, was held not to modify or limit the rights and liabilities established by the Convention.

Regarding easyJet’s claim for contribution against DRK, the Court held that German law applied as the law governing non-contractual obligations arising from the accident. Under German law, easyJet’s claim for contribution was time-barred because it was not brought within the three-year limitation period. Additionally, the claim was procedurally incompetent as it did not include all potentially liable parties.

The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that easyJet was bound by a pre-litigation admission of liability beyond the Convention’s terms, finding the email only acknowledged strict liability under the Convention without waiving limitations or defenses.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was as follows:

• EasyJet is liable to the Plaintiff for the loss, injury, and damage sustained in the accident without limitation of liability.
• The case was continued for proof on the quantum of damages.
• EasyJet’s claim for contribution against DRK is governed by German law and is barred by the expiration of the limitation period; DRK was absolved from the claim for contribution.
• Questions of expenses were reserved for future determination.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff may recover full damages from easyJet without limitation. No new precedent altering the established interpretation of the Montreal Convention was set; rather, the decision reaffirmed the broad application of the Convention to agents performing services in furtherance of carriage and clarified the application of limitation periods and contribution claims under German law.