Technical errors: The Eastern High Court has stayed four cases
The Eastern High Court has upheld the ruling from the City Court of Copenhagen staying four cases while waiting for the Supreme Court.
Following on our latest newsletter, the Eastern High Court in Denmark has given their ruling in four cases regarding compensation for delay. The High Court confirmed that the four cases – all concerning technical errors – shall be stayed until the Supreme Court has given its judgment in the Primera-cases. The technical errors in the four stayed cases could not have been identified during the statutory inspection of the aircraft and therefore the Eastern High Court acknowledged that the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Primera-cases may affect the outcome of the cases.
The Eastern High Court does not take into consideration whether or not the technical errors of the stayed cases were identical with the errors in the Primera-cases. Thus, it seems that the Eastern High Court agrees that all cases regarding technical errors may be affected by the Supreme Court judgement and thus should be stayed.
What now?
At this point, the District Court of Copenhagen has noticed that they will now contact parties in all pending cases in order for us to comment on the process from this point. On the basis of the High Court ruling, we will maintain our position:
All cases regarding technical errors should be stayed.
Furthermore, we maintain that airline companies should hesitate before recognizing claims for compensation in cases of delay caused by technical errors. We recommend that airlines inform the passengers that their position awaits the outcome of the four Primera-cases pending before the Supreme Court, and that any claims will be processed when the Supreme Court judgment has been handed down.
Following on our latest newsletter, the Eastern High Court in Denmark has given their ruling in four cases regarding compensation for delay. The High Court confirmed that the four cases – all concerning technical errors – shall be stayed until the Supreme Court has given its judgment in the Primera-cases. The technical errors in the four stayed cases could not have been identified during the statutory inspection of the aircraft and therefore the Eastern High Court acknowledged that the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Primera-cases may affect the outcome of the cases.
The Eastern High Court does not take into consideration whether or not the technical errors of the stayed cases were identical with the errors in the Primera-cases. Thus, it seems that the Eastern High Court agrees that all cases regarding technical errors may be affected by the Supreme Court judgement and thus should be stayed.
What now?
At this point, the District Court of Copenhagen has noticed that they will now contact parties in all pending cases in order for us to comment on the process from this point. On the basis of the High Court ruling, we will maintain our position:
All cases regarding technical errors should be stayed.
Furthermore, we maintain that airline companies should hesitate before recognizing claims for compensation in cases of delay caused by technical errors. We recommend that airlines inform the passengers that their position awaits the outcome of the four Primera-cases pending before the Supreme Court, and that any claims will be processed when the Supreme Court judgment has been handed down.
Receive our newsletter

Aage
Krogh
PartnerSimilar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Adam
Harding Ryyd Lange
Junior legal advisor
Albert
Berg Giese
Legal assistant
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Senior legal advisor
Anna
Bonander
Legal advisor
Anna
Ferguson Bille-Biggart
Junior legal assistant
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal manager (leave of absence)
Anna
Laura Brohl Larsen
Junior legal assistant
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Senior legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Senior legal advisor
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal advisor
Aurora
Maria Thunes Truyen
Associate
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Sofie Urup Malmstrøm
Legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Legal advisor
Clara
Caballero Stephensen
Junior legal advisor
Ea
Tingkær Hesselfeldt
Legal assistant
Ellen
Priess-Hansen
Junior legal advisor
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Senior legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal advisor
Emilie
Mehl Bagger
Junior legal assistant
Feline
Honoré Jepsen
Legal assistant
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Senior legal assistant
Freja
Pedersen
Junior legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Associate
Gustav
Vestergaard
Senior legal assistant
Holger
Koch-Klarskov
Legal advisor
Ian
Englev Jensen
Legal assistant
Ida
Marie Skovgaard Rubæk
Senior legal manager
Isabella
Fjording
Junior legal assistant
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Senior legal assistant
Johanne
Alberte Liljeborg
Junior legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Julia
Wolfe
Legal advisor
Kaisa
Maria Falkenberg Lending
Junior legal advisor
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Senior legal advisor
Karl Emil
Tang Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Senior legal manager
Kateryna
Buriak
Legal advisor
Laura
Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Luna
Bennesen
Legal assistant
Marie
Møller Christensen
Junior legal advisor
Mathias
Bech Linaa
Senior legal advisor
Mathias
Rex Brohus
Junior legal assistant
Mathilde
Bjørn Bjerring
Junior legal assistant
Mathilde
Stenderup
Junior legal assistant
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Merle
Frisendahl Fog
Junior legal assistant
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Legal advisor
Nourchaine
Sellami
Legal advisor
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal advisor
Selma
Agopian
Senior Associate, EU-advokat
Selma
Klinker Brodersen
Legal advisor
Silja
Brünnich Fogh von Deden
Legal assistant
Silje
Moen Knutsen
Legal advisor
Ulrikke
Sejersbøl Christiansen
Junior legal advisor
Victoria
Mai Gregaard Handberg
Legal advisor