# Extraordinary circumstances: which airline excuses hold up

Source: https://airtravelrights.com/uk261/extraordinary-circumstances/

> UK261's extraordinary-circumstances test, codified 14 December 2023, blocks only the compensation

# Airline refused compensation for "extraordinary circumstances"? Check the reason

"ATC restrictions", "adverse weather", "operational reasons": three rejection letters, one legal test. Since 14 December 2023 the extraordinary circumstances flight delay defence has a two-limb definition in UK261, and the airline has to prove it. Even a valid excuse removes only the fixed compensation; care and re-routing stay owed.

## How does UK law define extraordinary circumstances?

14 December 2023 is when SI 2023/1370 codified the definition in UK261 article 2(o). Limb one: an event not inherent in the airline's normal activity, beyond its actual control, and unavoidable even with all reasonable measures. Limb two: an air traffic management decision that all reasonable measures could not have avoided. Either limb removes only the article 7 payment.

Source: UK261 art. 2(o), codified by SI 2023/1370 - legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-15.

Limb two puts into the operative text what the Court of Appeal applied under recital 15 in Blanche [2019] EWCA Civ 69: an air traffic management decision counts, but only for a flight it actually delayed.

EU261 has no such definition: its article 5(3) names extraordinary circumstances without defining them.

Not your situation? A flight leaving an EU airport falls under [EU261](https://airtravelrights.com/eu261/), in euros. Routes to, from or within Canada sit under the [Air Passenger Protection Regulations](https://airtravelrights.com/canada-appr/). Unsure which law applies? [Work it out here](https://airtravelrights.com/which-law-covers-my-flight/). Flying in the US? US federal rules differ - see [US DOT rules](https://airtravelrights.com/us-dot/).

Ask the airline in writing which limb it relies on and what the event was. If the excuse fails, see [UK261 delay compensation](https://airtravelrights.com/uk261/flight-delay-compensation/) or the [compensation calculator](https://airtravelrights.com/compensation-calculator/).

## Is a technical fault an extraordinary circumstance?

2014 is when the Court of Appeal decided Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791, often called Huzar v Jet2. It held that an unforeseeable technical fault, there a wiring defect, is inherent in an airline's normal activity and is not an extraordinary circumstance, even if maintenance could not have prevented it.

Source: Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-15.

Huzar binds lower courts in England and Wales. Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008), a pre-2021 CJEU ruling that binds UK courts, says the same about technical defects. It names one limit: a hidden manufacturing defect affecting flight safety, revealed by the manufacturer or a competent authority, can qualify. In van der Lans (C-257/14, 2015) the CJEU held that an unexpected technical problem, not detected during routine maintenance checks, is still not extraordinary.

External damage is a separate category. In Pešková (C-315/15, 2017) the CJEU held that a bird strike can be an extraordinary circumstance. In Germanwings (Pauels) (C-501/17, 2019) a tyre damaged by a foreign object on the runway was one, but the airline still had to show it took all reasonable measures.

Ask the airline what failed and why: a faulty part points to Huzar, a bird strike or runway debris to proof of the measures taken.

## Is crew sickness an extraordinary circumstance?

5 justices of the UK Supreme Court decided Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24 unanimously. The captain's illness was not an extraordinary circumstance, and it does not matter when, why or how a crew member fell ill. In that case the captain reported sick off duty, and the illness was not work-related.

Source: Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24, UK Supreme Court - caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-15.

The ruling binds courts in England and Wales. The claim arose before the Brexit transition period ended, so the court applied the unamended EU text of the regulation. The justices split 4 to 1 on that question of applicable law, never on crew sickness.

Lipton covers illness. "Crew unavailable" or "crew timed out" names no cause at all, so there is nothing yet to test against the case law.

Ask the airline to state in writing why the crew was unavailable. If the answer is illness, reply citing Lipton [2024] UKSC 24 and ask for the compensation.

## Is a strike an extraordinary circumstance?

2018 strikes by Ryanair's own staff over pay and conditions led to The Civil Aviation Authority v Ryanair DAC [2022] EWCA Civ 76. The Court of Appeal held that the resulting cancellations were not extraordinary circumstances, even though unions were involved and whatever the merits of the demands. It upheld the CAA's enforcement order.

Source: The Civil Aviation Authority v Ryanair DAC [2022] EWCA Civ 76, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-15.

The CJEU's Grand Chamber reached the same result in Airhelp v SAS (C-28/20, 2021): a lawful strike by the carrier's own pilots is internal to its activity. Decided after 31 December 2020, it does not bind UK courts and is persuasive only.

Neither ruling covers a strike by anyone else. Huzar mentioned strikes only in passing, with terrorism, air traffic control problems and freak weather, as events outside a carrier's normal activity. That is not a ruling on an airport or air traffic control strike, so the airline still has to meet the article 2(o) test.

Check who went on strike. For the airline's own staff, cite CAA v Ryanair; for anyone else, ask how the strike delayed your flight and what the airline did about it. Detail is in the [strike compensation guide](https://airtravelrights.com/uk261/strike-flight-compensation/).

## Are air traffic control restrictions and bad weather extraordinary?

2019 is when the Court of Appeal decided Blanche v EasyJet Airline Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 69. An air traffic management decision, there a suspension of departures because of thunderstorms, is deemed extraordinary for a flight it delayed, whatever the decision's underlying cause and even if it hit many flights. The airline must still prove the causal link.

Source: Blanche v EasyJet Airline Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 69, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-15.

Limb two of article 2(o) now covers such decisions where all reasonable measures could not have avoided them. A restriction on other departures that day does not prove it delayed yours.

Weather with no air traffic management decision behind it falls under limb one. Huzar named "freak weather" only in passing, as an example of an event outside normal airline activity. An "adverse weather" letter still has to meet every part of limb one for your flight.

Ask for the airport, the time and the decision or weather event the airline relies on, and compare it with your own flight's timeline. For cancellations blamed on weather, see [flight cancelled due to weather](https://airtravelrights.com/flight-cancelled-due-to-weather/).

## Does a problem on an earlier flight count as your flight's excuse?

2020 is the year of TAP Portugal (LE v. TAP) (C-74/19), a CJEU ruling from before 2021 that binds UK courts. An airline may rely on an extraordinary circumstance that hit a previous flight by the same aircraft only with a direct causal link to your delay, and it must show all reasonable re-routing measures.

Source: TAP Portugal (LE v. TAP), C-74/19 (2020), CJEU - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-15.

In that case the aircraft's previous flight had been [diverted](https://airtravelrights.com/uk261/diverted-flight-compensation/) to disembark an unruly passenger, behaviour the CJEU held can be an extraordinary circumstance. The airline can carry it over as a knock-on delay only if it proves the link.

The chain works only if the first event was itself extraordinary. An ordinary technical fault on the earlier flight (Huzar), crew sickness (Lipton) or an own-staff strike (CAA v Ryanair) is no defence there, and none on yours.

A letter that says only "previous rotation" names no first cause. Ask in writing what disrupted the earlier flight and how it caused your delay, then test that cause against the sections above.

## What does the airline still owe you when the excuse is valid?

2 obligations survive a valid excuse: care under article 9, and reimbursement or re-routing under article 8. Articles 5(3) and 6(4) of UK261 release the airline only from the fixed article 7 compensation. SI 2023/1370 codified the definition but did not widen that exemption.

Source: UK261 art. 5(1), 5(3), 6(1), 6(4), 8 and 9; SI 2023/1370 - legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-15.

Care means meals and refreshments in proportion to the wait, two free calls or emails, and a hotel with transport to it if you have to stay overnight. On a delay it starts at 2 hours or more on flights up to 1,500 km, 3 hours or more for 1,500 to 3,500 km, and 4 hours or more beyond that. From 5 hours you can also ask for a refund under [article 8](https://airtravelrights.com/uk261/cancelled-flight-refund-voucher/)(1)(a).

On a cancellation you choose between a refund of the ticket, paid within 7 days, and re-routing to your destination, whatever the cause.

An airline that refuses a hotel on an overnight delay, or will not repay reasonable meal costs, is wrong on the law even when its compensation refusal is right.

Ask for care and re-routing separately, in writing, and keep every receipt.

## How do you challenge the rejection yourself?

8 weeks after your written complaint with no reply, or once the airline sends a final response you reject, you can take the dispute to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) if the airline belongs to a scheme. The two CAA-approved schemes are AviationADR and CEDR. ADR is free, and most decisions arrive within 3 months.

Source: Civil Aviation Authority, Alternative Dispute Resolution for air passengers - caa.co.uk, checked 2026-09-15.

File within 12 months of the airline's final response or last written communication, for an incident in the last six years (five if you live in Scotland). A decision you accept binds the airline, and you keep the right to go to court. For airlines outside ADR, such as Jet2 and [Loganair](https://airtravelrights.com/airlines/loganair/), the CAA's Passenger Advice and Complaints Team (PACT) may help, but it cannot make a binding decision. Scheme membership is in the [ADR schemes guide](https://airtravelrights.com/uk261/airline-adr-schemes/).

Before you escalate an extraordinary circumstances flight delay refusal, match the letter's wording to the case law above.

| Wording in the rejection letter | What it points to | Does the excuse count? |
|:--|:--|:--|
| "technical fault", "equipment affected by an unforeseen issue" | Technical defect | Usually does not count: even an unforeseeable defect is inherent (Huzar; van der Lans) |
| "bird strike", "foreign object damage" | External damage to the aircraft | Depends: can count if the airline shows all reasonable measures (Pešková; Germanwings (Pauels)) |
| "crew sickness", "crew member unwell" | Crew illness | Usually does not count, however the illness arose (Lipton) |
| "industrial action" by the airline's own pilots or cabin crew | Own-staff strike | Usually does not count (CAA v Ryanair; Airhelp v SAS, persuasive) |
| "ATC restrictions", "air traffic control" | Air traffic management decision | Usually counts, if the decision delayed your flight (Blanche) |
| "adverse weather", "bad weather" | Weather | Depends: counts through an air traffic management decision (Blanche); otherwise limb one applies |
| "previous rotation", "late inbound aircraft" | Knock-on from an earlier flight | Depends: only with a direct causal link and reasonable measures (TAP Portugal) |
| "operational reasons", "crew unavailable", "crew timed out" | No cause named | Depends: ask for the underlying event, then match it to a row above |

A "usually does not count" row is not a guaranteed win; it marks the excuse most worth a written challenge. Quote the matching case and its citation in your complaint or ADR application.

> If the rejection blamed a technical fault, crew sickness or a strike by the airline's own staff, [AirHelp (third-party claim service)](https://airtravelrights.com/partner/airhelp?ref=atr-gd-uk261-extraordinary-m) can take the claim on, no win no fee, and keeps a fee from any payout. The free ADR route above stays open.

General information, not legal advice. For your specific case: the CAA, Citizens Advice or a solicitor.

## Sources

- UK261 (Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 as amended), arts. 2, 5-9 - [legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/261/contents), checked 2026-09-15.
- The Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/1370) - [legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1370/made), checked 2026-09-15.
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, art. 5(3) (EU text) - [eur-lex.europa.eu](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32004R0261), checked 2026-09-15.
- CAA, Alternative Dispute Resolution - [caa.co.uk](https://www.caa.co.uk/air-passengers/travel-problems-and-rights/travel-complaints/alternative-dispute-resolution/), checked 2026-09-15.
- Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791 - [caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk](https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2014/791).
- Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24 - [caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk](https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2024/24).
- Blanche v EasyJet Airline Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 69 - [caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk](https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2019/69).
- The Civil Aviation Authority v Ryanair DAC [2022] EWCA Civ 76 - [caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk](https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2022/76).
- Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07 (2008) - [eur-lex.europa.eu](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0549).
- van der Lans, C-257/14 (2015) - [eur-lex.europa.eu](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0257).
- Pešková, C-315/15 (2017) - [eur-lex.europa.eu](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0315).
- Germanwings (Pauels), C-501/17 (2019) - [eur-lex.europa.eu](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0501).
- TAP Portugal (LE v. TAP), C-74/19 (2020) - [eur-lex.europa.eu](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0074).
- Airhelp v SAS, C-28/20 (2021) - [eur-lex.europa.eu](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0028).