Key Takeaways
• High Court ruled Air Canada not liable for turbulence injuries above $230,000 unless negligence is proven.
• Montreal Convention limits airline compensation unless waivers are stated clearly in contracts or tariffs.
• Decision clarifies compensation rights for passengers, especially immigrants, students, and tourists on international flights.
On May 14, 2025, the High Court of Australia delivered a major ruling that closed the door on further claims from passengers against Air Canada after a turbulent flight in 2019. This decision upholds limits on airline compensation for turbulence injuries, reinforcing how global treaties like the Montreal Convention shape what injury victims can expect in international air travel cases. For passengers and the wider public, this case clarifies the rules for seeking damages from airlines after sudden, unexpected events and could influence compensation claims in many similar contexts.
Severe Turbulence Triggers Legal Battle
This legal story began in July 2019, when Air Canada flight AC33 was traveling from Vancouver to Sydney. About halfway through the long journey to Australia 🇦🇺, the plane hit a stretch of severe turbulence. Several passengers, including Renae Evans and her daughter, suffered serious injuries. Some were reportedly flung out of their seats, hitting the cabin floor or slamming against seat armrests. Reports detailed that Ms. Evans needed surgery to replace a disc in her spine afterward, while her daughter suffered painful injuries to her back and neck.
Feeling that their trauma warranted more than the standard compensation an airline would usually offer, Evans and her daughter filed claims against Air Canada. They argued that airline documents suggested Air Canada had agreed to pay more than the usual legal limit. The legal challenge turned into a years-long court saga that would eventually reach the highest court in Australia.
The Montreal Convention and Australia’s Airline Rules
At the heart of the dispute was the Montreal Convention. This international treaty, recognized by countries worldwide and adopted into Australian law through the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, lays out exactly how much airlines must pay passengers after accidents. The Convention is supposed to offer a fair balance—making airlines quickly pay smaller compensation without requiring passengers to prove fault, while letting airlines defend themselves against very high claims unless they acted with negligence.
Under the Montreal Convention:
– There is a first-tier, “strict liability” compensation cap of 128,821 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), which is about $230,000 (based on values at the time of this case).
– If someone seeks more than that, the airline can escape further liability if it can show it was not careless, did not act improperly, and did not fail to act when it should have.
So, unless negligence is proven, the monetary amount set by the Montreal Convention is usually the maximum a passenger can receive for most accidents—like turbulence injuries—on international flights.
Were Air Canada’s Documents a Promise of Unlimited Compensation?
Evans and her daughter’s legal team made a bold argument. They pointed to the wording found in Air Canada’s “International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff,” usually just called “the Air Canada Tariff.” This set of rules, which every airline publishes and is filed with regulators, describes the airline’s responsibilities and passenger rights. The crucial phrase said there “are no financial limits in respect of death or injury.” The passengers understood this as Air Canada promising not to rely on the Montreal Convention’s cap.
In effect, they said: “Air Canada’s own contract says there is no limit, so we should be able to recover as much as a court finds appropriate, even beyond the $230,000 threshold.”
How the Courts Decided: Three Important Rulings
1. New South Wales Supreme Court: Passengers Win at First
When the matter first came before Justice Stephen Rothman in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, he agreed with the passengers. His reading of Air Canada’s documents found that the airline had, through its own rules, given up its right to rely on a damages cap. In his view, Air Canada’s promise of “no financial limits” in its tariff could mean it had voluntarily accepted potentially unlimited liability.
2. NSW Court of Appeal: Air Canada Wins Appeal
Air Canada quickly appealed, and the NSW Court of Appeal took a different approach. The judges there examined the Air Canada Tariff as a whole, not just the single phrase at issue. They said you cannot take one line out of context; instead, the meaning must fit with the overall purpose of the Montreal Convention, which is to set limits unless an airline clearly and fully waives them.
The appellate court found that the statements in Air Canada’s tariff were there to inform passengers about the main rules of the Montreal Convention, not to promise extra payments. Based on this, the court decided Air Canada had not gone beyond what the Convention required.
3. High Court of Australia: Final Word on Waiver
The passengers then appealed to the High Court, which is the highest legal authority in Australia. On May 14, 2025, the High Court judges all agreed (a unanimous decision) that Air Canada had not given up its right to rely on the damages cap in this instance. In very clear terms, the High Court said Article 25 of the Montreal Convention does let an airline waive these limits, but to do so the airline must say this clearly and plainly. In this case, the tariff simply restated the basic rules found in Articles 17 and 21.
Moreover, the judges emphasized that even though the case was brought under Australian domestic law, the interpretation of these treaty rules must match their international meaning. Australian law had not changed the intended meaning from the Montreal Convention.
This means passengers who suffered turbulence injuries cannot receive more than the set amount under strict liability unless Air Canada was proven to be negligent. In this case, the airline was not found to have acted carelessly or improperly before or during the incident.
What the High Court’s Decision Means for Everyone
The outcome of this case is important for several reasons, especially for people who travel internationally and wonder what rights they have if something goes wrong on a flight. The High Court’s decision makes several points clear:
- Compensation Caps Are Strong but Not Unbreakable: The Montreal Convention’s cap on damages is the law for international flights, unless an airline very clearly waives this cap in its own rules or contract.
- Wording Matters: Airlines have to be very specific if they want to give up the protections set out in international treaties. Vague statements aren’t enough.
- Turbulence Is Treated as an “Accident”, but Not Always Negligence: Even when passengers are injured in sudden turbulence, that alone does not mean the airline was at fault.
For injured passengers, this ruling sets an important precedent. If you are hurt in turbulence, you will only be able to get the amount set by law unless you can prove the airline (or its staff) did something wrong that directly caused your injuries. Airline documents or websites must be viewed in the context of the law, and bold claims about “no limits” should not be read in isolation.
Wider Impact: What About Immigrants, Tourists, and Students?
This case matters for a lot of people beyond just those on the 2019 Air Canada flight. Every year, thousands of immigrants, international students, and tourists travel on similar long-haul flights to and from Australia 🇦🇺 and Canada 🇨🇦. Many do so with the belief that they can claim full damages if a flight goes wrong. But under the Montreal Convention, there are firm rules—and strict limits—in place.
For newcomers and potential migrants, understanding these caps is key:
– Immigrants: If you are moving to a new country and something happens in transit, your compensation from the airline will likely be capped, unless you can show careless or improper conduct by staff.
– Students: Young people traveling to study abroad often fly with only basic travel insurance. This ruling is a reminder to check what’s covered and where the limits are.
– Tourists: If you’re just on vacation, and your flight experiences turbulence, you should not expect unlimited payment from the airline.
Employers, travel agents, and migration advisors can help by making sure travelers know these rules before any trip.
Turbulence Injuries: What Are Your Rights?
Turbulence remains one of the most common sources of injuries on commercial flights. While aircraft are designed to handle bumpy rides, and crews do their best to warn passengers, not all turbulence can be predicted. When turbulence strikes without warning, even those who follow safety instructions can get hurt.
If you or your family suffer turbulence injuries:
– Report the injury to the crew immediately. It is important for both medical attention and keeping an official record.
– Keep all paperwork. This includes tickets, boarding passes, Air Canada’s rules or conditions of carriage, and any communication about the incident.
– Know your limit. Unless you can prove the airline was careless or at fault, you will likely be limited to the set amount defined by the Montreal Convention.
– Consider other insurance. Sometimes private insurance (travel insurance, for example) can help fill in the gaps left by the legal cap.
The Australian High Court’s official summary explains the full legal details for those who want to read further.
Airline Contracts and Tariffs: Not Always as Generous as They Seem
One part of the case focused on how airlines write their tariffs or rules. Air Canada’s tariff, like those of most flag carriers, aims to comply with international law while also letting passengers know what to expect. Phrases like “no financial limits in respect of death or injury” sound generous but, as this case shows, do not always mean unlimited compensation—especially if other sections of the document clarify or limit the airline’s promise.
If you want to know the exact rules before you buy a ticket, check the airline’s published conditions of carriage and compare them with the Montreal Convention. VisaVerge.com’s investigation reveals that most major airlines use language closely tied to the Convention’s rules to protect themselves against the risk of huge injury awards.
Final Thoughts: The Importance of the Law for International Air Travelers
This lengthy court saga shows how international rules and national courts work together to settle tough questions about passenger rights. The High Court’s decision brings a clear answer for future claims about turbulence injuries on international flights connected to Australia 🇦🇺 and Canada 🇨🇦. It underlines how important it is to know both the legal limits on airline compensation and exactly what an airline’s own documents say.
While no one hopes to be involved in an in-flight injury, being aware of these basic facts can make it easier to plan, especially for immigrants, students, and other travelers who may not be familiar with international rules. For up-to-date official information about passenger rights under the Montreal Convention, you can visit the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s information page.
In summary, the High Court’s decision means that passengers cannot claim more than about $230,000 for turbulence injuries without proof of negligence, even when airline documents use language that seems broader. This decision builds clear expectations for everyone—from airlines to passengers—about what will happen when severe turbulence causes injury in the skies.
Learn Today
Montreal Convention → A 1999 international treaty setting rules and limits for airline liability in cases of passenger injury, death, or baggage loss.
Special Drawing Rights (SDR) → An international monetary unit created by the IMF used to calculate standardized compensation amounts in airline disputes globally.
Strict Liability → A legal principle where a party is responsible for damages without needing proof of fault; applied up to a capped amount here.
Airline Tariff → A legal document filed by airlines detailing fare rules, responsibilities, and passenger rights, which may impact liability and compensation.
Negligence → Failure to exercise reasonable care, which—if proven—removes compensation caps for accident-related injuries under the Montreal Convention.
This Article in a Nutshell
The Australian High Court’s 2025 ruling restricts Air Canada’s liability in turbulence-related injuries, enforcing the Montreal Convention’s compensation cap. Passengers can’t exceed the $230,000 limit unless they prove negligence. The decision clarifies legal rights for international travelers, emphasizing that vague airline statements won’t override international laws or compensation limits on injuries.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Delta Airlines drops change fees on many international flight bookings
• City of Monroe Lands $355K for Airport Overhaul
• Hawaiian Airlines Slaps Passengers With Harsh No-Show Policy
• Swiss International Air Lines Axes 1,400 Flights Over Pilot Shortage
• International Airlines Demand Legal Reforms for Israel Flights
