Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know

Out-Law News 4 min. read

Some relief for Ryanair, some clarity for disabled rights


The Court of Appeal has partially overturned a disability discrimination ruling against Ryanair. The no-frills airline was discriminating, the judges agreed, but so was Stansted Airport, and both airline and airport must share the consequent liability.

The case concerned a disabled passenger, Bob Ross, who has cerebral palsy and arthritis. Mr Ross does not need a wheelchair at all times but is unable to stand for any considerable time, so he did need one to get from Ryanair's check-in desk to the departure gate at Stansted Airport. He was charged £18 for use of a wheelchair but argued that this was discrimination.

Under the UK's Disability Discrimination Act, service providers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. Such an adjustment, Mr Ross argued, would be the provision of a free wheelchair. With support from the Disability Rights Commission (DRC), Mr Ross sued both Ryanair and Stansted Airport Limited. In January 2004, a county court decided that Ryanair was liable.

Ryanair was pilloried in the press on the back of January's ruling that it had discriminated against the disabled. However, the majority of the coverage overlooked Ryanair's argument in the case. The airline accepted at the start of the first court case that Mr Ross should not have to pay for rental of a wheelchair and that he had been discriminated against; its argument was simply that it should be Stansted Airport, not Ryanair, that should absorb the cost.

Ryanair had pointed out in the case that Mr Ross had bought his ticket to Perpignan for just £10. Before the trial, the airline had argued in a letter to the DRC that, for wheelchair bound passengers, "we actually spend more money to carry them to/from our aircraft than they pay us for the entire fare."

However, Stansted argued that it was customary for the passenger to become the responsibility of the airline once checked in. Only at Kerry Airport, said Stansted, does the cost of providing wheelchair assistance lie with the airport.

Judge Crawford Lindsay QC accepted Stansted's arguments and awarded Mr Ross compensation of £1,000 for injury to feelings, £36 for the two payments of £18 (he was travelling on a return flight to Perpignan, France) and £300 reimbursement for the wheelchair Mr Ross felt compelled to buy for future use.

The airline reacted to the judgment by announcing that it would add 50p to the price of every ticket to cover the cost of providing wheelchairs. It also lodged an appeal. Following a hearing last month, Lord Justice Brooke handed down his detailed judgment yesterday. Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Keene simply agreed with his opinion.

Both the DRC and Ryanair claimed victory last night.

DRC Chairman Bert Massie said:

"This decision sends a signal to every airport and airline that disabled people will no longer put up with a second class service. And that they have the firm backing of the law to ensure that fair treatment prevails."

Ryanair welcomed the decision to "finally establish the responsibility of the British Airport Authority to provide for wheelchair assistance for passengers." The airline said it vindicates its decision to appeal the case, but also expressed disappointment that the Court of Appeal "did not establish that BAA was 100% responsible". The airline said it will be reducing its wheelchair levy by 50%.

Ryanair's Head of Communications, Paul Fitzsimmons, added:

"Ryanair will continue to fight to lower the cost of air travel for all passengers and it is not unreasonable that the very rich owners of terminal buildings such as BAA Stansted should be responsible for providing free of charge wheelchair access through these complicated terminal buildings for those with limited mobility."

The court's most difficult challenge was not to determine whether Mr Ross had been discriminated against but to attribute blame – and that was resolved with much reference to contractual details. However, some points came out in the Appeal Court ruling that will be of interest to observers of disability discrimination law generally, including those seeking further guidance on how far a web site operator must go to ensure that his web site is accessible to disabled internet users.

Lord Justice Brooke cited another recent case involving a train passenger with mobility problems. The Court of Appeal gave its ruling in that case last month, finding that Central Trains acted unlawfully by not paying the cost of passenger Keith Roads' cab fare to transport him across an area that was inaccessible to his wheelchair.

Lord Justice Brooke endorsed the view of Lord Justice Sedley in that judgment, when Sedley said that the policy of the 1995 legislation "is not a minimalist policy of simply ensuring that some access is available to the disabled: it is so far as reasonably practicable, to approximate the access enjoyed by disabled persons to that enjoyed by the rest of the public."

The duty to make adjustments is one that is owed "to disabled persons as a class and not to any particular claimant," said Lord Justice Brooke – adding that this was also made clear by Sedley.

Lord Justice Brooke continued: "There was no suggestion that it was not reasonably practicable for Ryanair and/or [Stansted Airport] to provide a wheelchair without cost, given their financial resources."

He concluded:

"The evidence revealed the commendable efforts [Stansted Airport] had made to comply with their obligations under the Act. In 1997 Stansted Airport won the EASE award of the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for Disabled People on account of the high standard of the facilities and access for the disabled at the airport. Three years later they were among the finalists for the same award. [Stansted's] liability in this case arises not because of any reluctance on their part to fulfil their overall responsibilities towards the disabled, but because they failed to recognise that they had important responsibilities under the Act which simply were not being fulfilled by anyone once Ryanair had decided to break away from the industry's customary practice in 1995 in their pursuit of a cheaper 'no frills' service for their clientele, a service which has proved to be very popular. [Stansted'] failure is a serious one, which is not in any way excused by the unlawfulness of Ryanair's policy."

The result was that Ryanair's appeal was dismissed in so far as the airline sought to escape all liability; but Stansted Airport was ordered to contribute 50% of Ryanair's liability as to damages and interest. The payment of legal costs has yet to be determined.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.