Why We Never Give Up Without Looking Twice: How a Rejected Claim Became a €2,400 Win
Sometimes the difference between a failed claim and a successful one comes down to asking one more question. This case is a perfect example of that — a claim that was very nearly closed, a detail that changed everything, and a €2,400 result that the airline did everything it could to avoid paying.
Case at a Glance
Flight delay compensation claim won after airline rejection based on weather
€2,400
- Type of Claim
Flight delay compensation - Delay Duration
9+ hours - Airline’s Initial Response
Rejected — adverse weather conditions - Outcome
Full claim won at Court
The Claim: A 9-Hour Delay and a Flat Rejection
Our client’s flight was delayed by more than nine hours — a significant disruption that under UK and EU flight delay regulations entitles passengers to compensation, provided the cause of the delay is not an extraordinary circumstance beyond the airline’s control.
We submitted the claim. The airline rejected it. Their position was that the delay had been caused by adverse weather conditions — one of the most commonly cited extraordinary circumstances used by airlines to avoid paying compensation — and they supplied evidence to support that assertion.
Here is where many claims would have ended. The weather on the day was indeed adverse. The airline’s explanation was plausible. The evidence they provided appeared, on the face of it, to support their defence.
We were ready to close the file.
The Detail That Changed Everything
Before doing so, we carried out one final round of research into the circumstances of the delay. And that research revealed something the airline had not volunteered: the flight had also been delayed by four hours due to a technical fault.
This was the critical finding. Under flight delay compensation law, airlines cannot hide behind a single convenient explanation where multiple factors contributed to a delay. A technical fault is not an extraordinary circumstance — it is something within the airline’s control, something they are responsible for maintaining, and something that gives rise to a compensation liability. The adverse weather may well have played a role, but it was not the whole story, and it did not extinguish the claim.
We did not close the file. We pressed on.
The Airline’s Response: Deny, Delay, Defend
Presented with our findings, the airline declined to settle or admit liability. The matter proceeded to Court.
The airline filed a formal defence — but crucially, their defence failed to adequately address the technical fault and the four-hour delay it had caused. Whether this was an oversight or a deliberate strategy of hoping the point would go unnoticed, we cannot say. What we can say is that we noticed, and we made sure the Court did too.
We filed a robust response, setting out in clear terms the inaccuracies and omissions in the airline’s defence, and placing the technical delay front and centre. The argument was precise: whatever the weather conditions may have caused, the technical fault independently caused a delay that exceeded the threshold for compensation liability, and the airline had no valid defence to that element of the claim.
The Result: €2,400 in Full
The Court agreed. Our client received the full €2,400 compensation they were entitled to.
What This Case Demonstrates
- Airline rejection letters are not the final word. Airlines routinely reject claims, sometimes on grounds that do not withstand scrutiny. A rejection is the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it.
- The detail is in the data. The adverse weather explanation was not wrong — but it was incomplete. Thorough research into the full history of a delay, including technical logs and delay records, can reveal facts that fundamentally change the picture.
- Diligence at the point of near-closure matters. This claim was almost closed. It was a final check — the kind of careful, conscientious approach that defines how we handle every file — that uncovered the technical delay and saved the claim entirely.
- A weak defence can be exposed. The airline filed their defence but could not adequately account for the technical fault. Identifying and exploiting the weaknesses in an opponent’s case is exactly what skilled legal representation is for.
Think Your Flight Delay Claim Was Wrongly Rejected?
If your claim has been turned down by an airline — particularly on the basis of weather or other extraordinary circumstances — it is worth a second look. Airlines do not always tell the full story, and the reasons for a delay are not always as straightforward as they present them.
We handle flight delay compensation claims on a no win, no fee basis. Contact us today for a free review of your case.
-
Auction legal pack review: What you need to know before you bid
-
What does “subject to contract” mean in conveyancing?
-
How much deposit do you need to buy a house in the UK?
-
What is a flood risk search when buying property?
-
How to prepare a watertight auction legal pack: A Manchester solicitor’s guide
-
What happens during the conveyancing process in the UK?
-
What Is the TR1 Transfer Form?
-
PM Law closure: help if your conveyancing is stuck
-
What does a conveyancing solicitor actually do?
-
What is conveyancing? A simple guide for first-time buyers
