Airline refused compensation for “extraordinary circumstances”? Check the reason

An airline that refuses compensation for extraordinary circumstances has to prove them: since 14 December 2023 UK261 defines the extraordinary circumstances flight delay defence with a two-limb test. “ATC restrictions”, “adverse weather” and “operational reasons” all face that one test, and even a valid excuse removes only the fixed compensation; care and re-routing stay owed.

Updated 28 Oct 2026·Sources checked 15 Sep – 12 Oct 2026·15 min read

#UK261 £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; UK261 art. 2(o) wording and recitals 14-15 — legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-10-12.

The exact words matter when you quote them back. Article 2(o) reads: “'extraordinary circumstances' means circumstances which cause delay or cancellation and— (a) that— (i) by their nature or origin are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier, (ii) are beyond the actual control of the air carrier, and (iii) the air carrier has taken all reasonable measures in relation to but was unable to avoid; or (b) arose from the impact of an air traffic management decision and could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.

Limb (b) sets no condition on why the decision was made. It puts into the operative text what the Court of Appeal applied under recital 15 in Blanche [2019] EWCA Civ 69. Recital 14 of the UK text keeps the EU examples word for word, including “meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned”. A recital guides the reading; article 2(o) is the test. EU261 has no such definition.

Not your situation? A flight leaving an EU airport falls under EU261, in euros. Routes to, from or within Canada sit under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations. Unsure which law applies? Work it out here. Flying in the US? US federal rules differ — see US DOT rules.

Ask the airline in writing which limb it relies on and what the event was. If the excuse fails, see UK261 delay compensation or the compensation calculator.

#List of extraordinary circumstances on UK flights, with the authority for each

6 categories head the CAA’s list of events likely to be extraordinary, from weather incompatible with safe operation to strikes by air traffic control, ground handlers or border force. The CAA calls its reading illustrative, and UK courts decide under article 2(o). The table adds the rulings that bind or persuade those courts.

Source: CAA, Am I entitled to compensation?; CAA guidance on consumer law for airlines and airports; CAA statement on the NATS disruption of 8 September 2026 (published 9 September 2026) — caa.co.uk, checked 2026-10-12.

“Binding” means a UK Supreme Court or Court of Appeal ruling, or a CJEU ruling from before 2021; a CJEU ruling from 2021 on is persuasive only in UK courts.

The CAA list carries two cautions. The regulator “typically does not comment” on whether an individual event meets the threshold, except in limited situations such as system-wide disruption. Its interpretation is “illustrative and for guidance only”, and you can still claim, including through the courts, if you disagree.

The NATS outage of 8 September 2026 drew one of those system-wide statements. The CAA said disruption it caused was likely extraordinary, knock-on delays and cancellations included, so compensation was unlikely. Airlines still had to look after passengers and offer a refund, re-routing at the earliest opportunity or re-routing at a later date.

Find your event in the table, then check that the airline’s letter names the same event.

#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.

Pešková also set two limits that bind UK courts. Delay caused by the airline sending its own expert for fresh safety checks, after an authorised expert had already done them, is not extraordinary. And the reasonable measures include steps to keep birds away, but only steps the airline itself can take, not those of the airport or air traffic control.

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; TAP Portugal, C-156/22 (2023) — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-10-12.

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.

The CJEU reached the same answer in TAP Portugal (C-156/22, 2023), on a co-pilot found dead before a 06:05 departure. The unexpected absence of an essential crew member through illness or death is not extraordinary. Decided after 2020, it is persuasive only in UK courts, and it supports Lipton rather than adding to it.

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; Airhelp v SAS, C-28/20, paras 42-43 — eur-lex.europa.eu; CAA, Am I entitled to compensation? — caa.co.uk, checked 2026-10-12.

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.

A strike by anyone else is a different event. In the same Airhelp v SAS judgment (paras 42-43), the Grand Chamber said strike action by air traffic controllers or airport staff may be extraordinary, because such action falls outside the carrier’s activity. In the UK that judgment is persuasive only. The CAA lists strikes by airport staff, ground handlers, air traffic control or border force as likely extraordinary. That list covers a French air traffic control strike, which can delay a UK flight that never lands in France. The airline still has to meet the article 2(o) test for your flight, including reasonable measures.

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.

#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; C-108/26, judgment of 8 October 2026 (provisional text); Pešková, C-315/15, operative point 4 — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-10-12.

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.

UK and EU law now part ways on these decisions. On 8 October 2026, in C-108/26, the CJEU held that under EU261 an air traffic management decision is not extraordinary in itself: the event that caused it is examined case by case. Limb (b) sets no such condition, and Blanche treated the cause as irrelevant. C-108/26 is persuasive only in UK courts, so on a UK flight an ATC restriction that delayed your aircraft still usually counts.

Pešková (C-315/15, 2017), which binds UK courts, adds a deduction rule: if an extraordinary event caused only part of a 3-hour arrival delay, that part comes off before the 3-hour test is applied.

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.

#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; C-74/19 operative point 3; Eglītis & Ratnieks, C-294/10 (2011) — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-10-12.

In that case the aircraft’s previous flight had been diverted 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.

The same ruling limits what a reasonable measure is. Re-routing you on the airline’s own flight the next day is not enough if an earlier option existed, direct or indirect, on its own or another airline’s flight. The only other way out is an intolerable sacrifice for the airline. Eglītis & Ratnieks (C-294/10, 2011), also binding, requires reserve time planned so the airline can still operate once the event ends.

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; CAA guidance on the Heathrow closure of 21 March 2025 — caa.co.uk, checked 2026-10-12.

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(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. The CAA said the same after Heathrow closed on 21 March 2025: replacement flights and care are “due regardless of the cause of your delay or cancellation”.

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, 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.

Before you escalate an extraordinary circumstances flight delay refusal, match the letter’s wording to the case law 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) can take the claim on, no win no fee, and keeps a fee from any payout. The free ADR route above stays open.

Do it yourself · freeClaim with the airline, then ADR

• Write to the airline and keep the reference
• Refused, or no answer in 8 weeks: its ADR scheme or the CAA, free
• You keep all of the compensation

Use the claim letter template →

Hand it overAirHelp takes the claim, no win no fee

• They deal with the airline for you
• AirHelp's fee is 35% of the compensation, VAT included, and nothing if the claim fails.

Start with AirHelp →Third-party claim service · Our AirHelp review →

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, checked 2026-09-15.
• The Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/1370) — legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-15.
• Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, art. 5(3) (EU text) — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-15.
• CAA, Alternative Dispute Resolution — caa.co.uk, checked 2026-09-15.
• Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791 — caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk.
• Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24 — caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk.
• Blanche v EasyJet Airline Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 69 — caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk.
• The Civil Aviation Authority v Ryanair DAC [2022] EWCA Civ 76 — caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk.
• Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07 (2008) — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• van der Lans, C-257/14 (2015) — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• Pešková, C-315/15 (2017) — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• Germanwings (Pauels), C-501/17 (2019) — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• TAP Portugal (LE v. TAP), C-74/19 (2020) — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• Airhelp v SAS, C-28/20 (2021) — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• UK261, introductory text (recitals 14-15) — legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-10-12.
• CAA, Am I entitled to compensation? - caa.co.uk, checked 2026-10-12.
• CAA, Guidance on consumer law for airlines and airports — caa.co.uk, checked 2026-10-12.
• CAA, Statement on passenger compensation following NATS disruption on 8 September (9 September 2026) — caa.co.uk, checked 2026-10-12.
• CAA, Guidance to consumers impacted by Heathrow Airport incident (21 March 2025) — caa.co.uk, checked 2026-10-12.
• European Commission, Interpretative Guidelines 2016/C 214/04, §5.4 (adopted by the CAA) — caa.co.uk, checked 2026-10-12.
• Moens v Ryanair, C-159/18 (2019) — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• Eglītis & Ratnieks, C-294/10 (2011) — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• TAP Portugal (Death of the co-pilot), C-156/22 (2023), persuasive only — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• AirHelp Germany (Aircraft struck by lightning), C-399/24 (2025, provisional text), persuasive only — eur-lex.europa.eu.
• D (Air traffic management decision), C-108/26 (judgment of 8 October 2026, provisional text), persuasive only — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-10-12.

#FAQ

What are the exceptions to flight delay compensation?

1 exception applies: the airline proves the delay or cancellation came from extraordinary circumstances that all reasonable measures could not have avoided. UK appeal courts have held that technical faults, crew sickness and strikes by the airline’s own staff do not qualify. An air traffic management decision that actually delayed your flight does.

Is a technical fault an extraordinary circumstance?

No, as a rule. In the 2014 case Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791, the Court of Appeal held that an unforeseeable wiring defect was inherent in normal airline activity, even though maintenance could not have prevented it. A hidden manufacturing defect affecting flight safety, or external damage such as a bird strike, can qualify.

Does crew sickness count as extraordinary circumstances?

No. In Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24, all 5 UK Supreme Court justices held that a captain’s illness was not an extraordinary circumstance, and that it does not matter when, why or how a crew member fell ill. Compensation stays owed unless a different extraordinary cause applies.

Is air traffic control an extraordinary circumstance?

Usually, on a UK flight. Article 2(o)(b) of UK261, in force since 14 December 2023, covers an air traffic management decision that all reasonable measures could not avoid, and Blanche [2019] EWCA Civ 69 held its cause irrelevant. EU261 now differs: since C-108/26 (8 October 2026) the cause of the decision is examined.