Queen’s Bench Division

Published April 23, 2008

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd (in Liquidation)

A hot-air balloon could be categorised as an aircraft within the meaning of the Non International Rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order (SI 1967 No 480). The rules provided the sole cause of action and remedy against a carrier available to a claimant in respect of injuries caused by it to him.

Mr Justice Eady so held in a reserved judgment in the Queen’s Bench Division on April 17, 2008, in respect of preliminary issues in proceedings commenced in August 2006 by the claimant, Michael Laroche, who had suffered injuries in August 2003 when landing after a trip as passenger in a hot-air balloon operated by the defendant, Spirit of Adventure Ltd.

The defendant went into liquidation in June 2004 but was restored to the Register of Companies by a consent order in May 2006 so that proceedings could go ahead.

HIS LORDSHIP said that since the relevant balloon flight had taken place within England, the NonInternational Rules governed any claim.

The same principle of exclusivity applied to claims within the scope of the Non International Rules as to those governed by the Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929, as scheduled to the Carriage by Air Act 1961.

In this case, the two-year period for bringing a claim provided for by article 29 of Schedule 1 had already lapsed and the claimant’s right to action was extinguished.

The power in section 651 of the Companies Act 1985, to direct that time should not count towards limitation periods, did not apply, nor could the operation of article 29 be overridden by recourse to the English doctrines of estoppel or waiver.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers