AIRLINES could be forced to compensate customers for long delays caused by other passengers following a ruling against Thomas Cook, reports Travel Mole today.

However, the airline insisted the case didn’t set a precedent and it didn’t mean carriers would have to compensate passengers for the seemingly increasing number of delays caused by unruly or drunken behaviour.

Birmingham County Court ordered Thomas Cook to pay passenger Maria Edwards €1,068 after her family of four endured a nine-hour delay to its flight home from Tunisia in 2014.

Thomas Cook had initially refused to compensate passengers on the flight, offering only a €5 meal voucher per passenger, because it claimed the delay was caused by another passenger accidentally damaging an emergency door handle on an earlier flight.

The company said the flight was held up while it waited for replacement parts to be flown from France and for three years it has been fighting against Edwards’ compensation claim.

However, Birmingham County Court ruled the family was entitled to compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004.

According to flight delay compensation company EUclaim, the Court said Thomas Cook had not met its obligations to Ms Edwards. “The judge ruled that the operational effectiveness of the Thomas Cook’s fleet was the sole responsibility of the airline, regardless of whether they directly caused the disruption,” it said.

Adeline Noordehaven, EUclaim’s UK manager, indicated the ruling might lead to claims for compensation from customers whose flights have been delayed by disruptive passengers.

“The passenger who caused this delay was not disruptive or unruly and the damage occurred during his ‘normal use of the aircraft’, but it still opens up an interesting debate on where passenger responsibility begins and ends for airlines.

“For example, a passenger consuming a glass of wine served on board would be considered ‘normal use of the aircraft’, but what about when one glass turns into three and the passenger becomes intoxicated? This ruling could open the door to a whole new type of delay compensation.”

In response to her comments, Thomas Cook released the following statement: “We’re always extremely sorry for any delay and our main focus is on getting our passengers to and from holiday on time and in just three years our long delays have dropped from four percent to less than one percent making us one of the highest performing airlines in the industry.

“The claim of a landmark ruling lacks credibility because County Court judgments cannot create legal precedents.

“We do not believe a comparison can be made between unintentional passenger damage and disruptive passenger claims. We have recently successfully defended cases of a similar nature where district judges have ruled that passenger damage is an extraordinary circumstance.

“We have also successfully defended cases of disruptive passengers.”