Robert Lawson QC

Robert has considerable experience dealing with air carrier liability concerning passengers, baggage and cargo, as well as air disasters, group litigation, aviation-related product liability claims, inquests, personal injury and fatal accident claims generally, aircraft maintenance disputes, regulatory matters, the drafting of airline terms and conditions, aircraft finance and leasing disputes, CAA prosecutions, tour operator liability and intra-aviation/travel industry contractual disputes.

Robert has acted as counsel in many of the most notable aviation and travel cases fought in England & Wales in recent years. Cases fought to judgment in which Robert has acted include the following.

Before the House of Lords:

Re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation [2006] 1 AC 495 (House of Lords), [2004] QB 234 (Court of Appeal), [2003] 1 All ER 935 (First Instance) – The meaning and scope of 'accident' within article 17 of the Warsaw Convention; whether an air carrier can be liable for the onset of DVT. At first instance also whether articles 6 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are relevant to the interpretation of the Warsaw Convention; and whether Council Regulation (EC) No.2027/97 provides a cause of action alternative to the Warsaw Convention. In this case Robert acted for both carriers in the Lords, for 17 of the 18 carriers before the Court of Appeal and for 26 of the 27 carriers who were defendants at first instance.

Morris v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (heard in the Lords with the Scottish case of King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd) [2002] 2 AC 628 (House of Lords), [2002] QB 100 (Court of Appeal) - The meaning and scope of 'bodily injury' within article 17 of the Warsaw Convention; whether an air carrier can be liable for mental injury. Before the Court of Appeal also whether sexual assault by a fellow passenger gives rise to liability on the part of the carrier under article 17.

Before the Court of Appeal, also:

R (Kibris Turk Hava Yollari and another) v. Secretary of State for Transport and The Republic of Cyprus (interested party)  [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 340 (Court of Appeal), [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 253 (First Instance) - Whether the Secretary of State would be in breach of the UK's obligation to respect the rights of the Republic of Cyprus under the Chicago Convention on International Aviation 1944 if he were to grant permission for direct flights between the UK and northern Cyprus against the wishes of the Republic; whether the Republic is capable of exercising its rights under articles 5, 6, 10 and 68 of the Chicago Convention with regards to northern Cyprus notwithstanding its lack of effective control over that territory; the scope of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 as to suspension of treaty rights; whether the Republic's entitlement to exercise the aforesaid rights under the Chicago Convention is suspended with regards to northern Cyprus by reason of customary international law; whether direct flights could be lawful on any exceptional basis; whether the grant of permits would amount to recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as a State.

Barclay v. British Airways Plc  [2010] QB 187 – The meaning and scope of 'accident' in article 17.1 of the Montreal Convention; whether an air carrier is liable for an injury caused by a slip having no unusual or unexpected cause independent of the claimant. 

Laroche v. Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd [2009] QB 778 (Court of Appeal),  [2008] 4 All ER 494 (First Instance) - Whether carriage by a hot air balloon on a leisure flight for payment was carriage of a 'passenger' 'for reward' by an 'aircraft' within the meaning of schedule 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967; the nature and effect of the provision in article 29 of schedule 1 (and the Warsaw Convention) prescribing a 2 year period in which an action must be brought, in particular whether that 2 year period can be extended or side-stepped by reference to domestic law.

R (The Association of British Travel Agents Ltd) v. Civil Aviation Authority [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 898 (Court of Appeal), (2006) ACD 49 (First Instance) – Whether the CAA's Guidance Note 26 re Air Travel Organisers' Licensing was amenable to judicial review and lawful; what amounts to the sale of a 'package' including flight accommodation for the purposes of the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) Regulations 1995.

Disley v. Levine [2002] 1 WLR 785 (Court of Appeal), [2001] PIQR P10 (First Instance) – Whether carriage on a tandem paraglider during a course of instruction was carriage of a 'passenger' 'for reward' by an 'aircraft' within the meaning of schedule 1 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967.

Chaudhari v. British Airways Plc [1997] EWCA Civ 1413 – The meaning and scope of 'accident' within article 17 of the Warsaw Convention.

Milor SRL and others v. British Airways Plc [1996] QB 702  – Whether article 28 of the Warsaw Convention precludes the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in respect of a State having jurisdiction under that article.

Gurtner and others v. Beaton and others [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 369 (Court of Appeal), (1990) 1 S&B Av R VII/499 (First Instance) - The meaning of article 25 of the Warsaw-Hague Convention; the scope of implied actual authority and/or apparent authority; liability in negligence of Air Traffic Control.

At First Instance, also:

Civil Aviation Authority Scarce Capacity Allocation Certificate Decision 1/10 re allocation of additional bilateral capacity on the London – Cairo route (as between two incumbent UK carriers and a potential new entrant).

Civil Aviation Authority Scarce Capacity Allocation Certificate Decision 1/09 re allocation of additional bilateral capacity on the London – Kiev route (as between an incumbent UK carrier and a potential new entrant).

The Nimrod Review (2009) and The Nimrod MR2 XV230 Inquest concerning the death of the 14 servicemen killed in the accident befalling that aircraft in Afghanistan on 2nd September 2006 (2008)– The cause of the fire on the fatal flight; the airworthiness of the Nimrod MR2 aircraft type.

Oxford Aviation Services Ltd v. Godolphin Management Company Ltd [2004] All ER (D) 230 (Feb) - Whether there was an oral representation by an employee of the owner of an aircraft to a person hiring it that the hirer would be covered under the owner's insurance policy in respect of its use of the aircraft; whether there was any cause of action arising out of any such representation which served to defeat the hirer's liability to the owner in bailment for the loss of the aircraft.

GKN Westland Helicopters Ltd and others v. Korean Air [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 629 – The relationship between article 22(4) of the Warsaw-Hague Convention and the automatic entitlement to costs provided for in CPR Pt.36.

Lambson Aviation Ltd and others v. Embraer Empresa Brasileira de Aeronatucia SA and others [2001] All ER (D) 152 (Oct), LTL 19/10/2001 – Whether an aircraft manufacturer was negligent in installing and/or continuing to permit the use of a particular type of artificial horizon on a commuter aircraft; whether the failure of the horizon in flight was attributable to any negligence on the part of the aircraft or instrument manufacturer; whether the fatal air accident which followed was caused by any negligence on the part of either manufacturer or by pilot error.

Rolls Royce Plc and another v. Heavylift-Volga Dnepr Ltd and another [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 653 – The meaning of 'aerodrome' and scope of 'carriage by air' within article 18 of the Warsaw Convention.>

The Post Office and others v. British World Airlines Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 378 – The nature and scope of the liability of an air carrier to the Post Office.

Civil Aviation Authority Air Transport Licences and Route Licences Decisions 2/99 (re the licensing of flights between London-Stansted and Switzerland), 4/98 (re allocation of bilateral capacity for a second UK carrier on the London – Moscow route)& 3/98 (re allocation of additional bilateral capacity on the London – Cape Town route).

Monarch Airlines Ltd v. London Luton Airport Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 403 - The construction and reasonableness of an airport operator's exclusion clause (in standard market form).

Deaville and others v. Aeroflot Russian International Airlines [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep 67 – Entitlement to an anti-suit injunction in respect of a case governed by article 28 of the Warsaw-Hague Convention, to restrain an action in a State with no article 28 jurisdiction.

Robert has also assisted with the written advocacy in aviation related cases before the High Court of Australia, the Court of Appeal of Singapore, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, the High Court of the Commonwealth of Dominica, the High Court of Malaya, the District Court of Hong Kong and the Supreme Court of India.

For aircraft finance and leasing see Banking & Finance.

For aviation related insurance see Insurance.

For aviation related arbitration see Insurance and International Arbitration.

Robert's work in this area arises mostly in an aviation context. He frequently advises in respect of, and acts in cases concerning, aircraft finance and/or leasing disputes (including in relation to letters of credit and guarantees), often involving high value commercial jet aircraft or aircraft fleets. These usually resolve without recourse to court hearings or by arbitration. Cases in which he has acted that have resulted in High Court hearings include:

Global 5000 Ltd v. Wadhawan [2012] EWCA Civ 13 (Court of Appeal), [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 190 (First Instance) - In a claim made under a guarantee, whether the gateway for service out of the jurisdiction provided by CPR PD6B para 3.1(6) of a "claim .. made in respect of a contract" must be satisfied in respect of the guarantee relied upon or whether it can be satisfied by reference to the primary contract alleged to be subject to the guarantee; whether a letter amounted to an offer of guarantee and if so whether that offer was accepted by conduct; whether England was the appropriate forum.

Kayo Ltd v. Blue Wings AG, concerning the effectiveness of a purported termination of Aircraft Sale and Purchase Agreements in respect of 3 Airbus A330-200 aircraft and the legitimacy of the seller's retention of the deposit monies.

NV Sabena SA v. European Aviation Ltd, concerning the construction of the leases of a fleet of 13 Boeing 737 aircraft sold under a sale and lease back arrangement and in particular the recoverability of sums claimed in respect of alleged breaches of the return conditions.

Equator Leasing Eighteen Ltd v. Nigeria Airways Ltd, concerning the lessee's liability to meet sums alleged to be owing under the lease of a DC10 aircraft and the correct quantification of the relevant heads of claim.

Robert's general commercial work tends to involve the aviation or travel industry in some way. He has advised and acted in sizeable cases involving aircraft seat charters, revenue accounting, the provision of ground handling services both to airlines and to tour operators, the block provision of hotel accommodation, non-payment of debt, the exercise of liens over profit earning chattels, the sale of high value goods (in particular aircraft and jet engines), and negligence by auditors.

See also Aviation & Travel, Insurance, Banking & Finance and International Arbitration.

Robert has experience in international arbitration both as counsel and as arbitrator.

He acted as counsel in an Ad hoc arbitration between an air carrier and others concerning responsibility for an aircraft accident (2011) in which the issues were: whether the accident was caused by negligence on the part of flight crew; whether a product manufacturer was negligent in respect the design of a piece of equipment and/or the annunciations provided in respect of its operating status; whether any party was in breach of the memorandum of understanding made between them with regards to the seeking of relief against third parties; whether loss of business suffered by an air carrier as a result of the stigma of its aircraft being lost in an accident was pure economic loss or economic loss consequent upon the physical loss of the aircraft.

He acted as counsel in ICC arbitration No.16348 (2010), which was a dispute between an aircraft product manufacturer and a specialist sub-contractor in respect of a part for use on a class of commercial passenger aircraft. Issues: whether the redesign and retrofit of the component was necessitated by a revised specification imposed by the contractor or by a fault in the sub-contractor's original design such that the component did not meet the original specification; whether there was any agreement preventing the sub-contractor from recovering the costs of the redesign and retrofit in any event; the meaning and effect of the contractual entitlement of the sub-contractor to refuse purchase orders; whether the sub-contractor was in breach of the contract made between the parties.

He acted as counsel in LCIA arbitration No.7943 (2010), concerning a revenue accounting dispute between two airlines and, in particular, the correct construction of the contractual framework agreed between them and the payment obligations thereunder.

He acted as the chairman of the arbitral panel in ICC arbitration No.10947, an interlocutory decision of which is reported at ASA Bull. 2/2004 p.308 – Whether the arbitration clause in a lease was null and void under the applicable law (Ecuadorian law) and if so whether the ICC had jurisdiction to entertain the claimants' claim; whether a public entity could invoke its own law to challenge the arbitrability of a dispute or its capacity to be a party to an arbitration; whether the arbitration should be stayed pending the resolution of court proceedings (in Ecuador) seeking a declaration that the arbitration clause was null and void.

He also acted as a member of the arbitral panel in an Arbitration between an air carrier and its ground handling agent pursuant to IATA arbitration clause in the ground handling agreement between them (2000), in which the issues were whether a consignment of bank notes was stolen during the course of embarkation by or with the assistance of any of the persons entrusted with its loading on to an aircraft in the middle East or was otherwise lost there, or during a stopover in the course of its carriage or upon arrival at its place at destination in Europe.

See also Insurance.

Robert's work in this area arises mostly in respect of the world of aviation. He regularly advises on aviation related coverage issues, both as between insureds and insurers and also as between insurers, in respect of both general aviation and major airline losses.

Robert has appeared in a number of coverage arbitrations. Those fought to an award include:

Arbitration between the insured and the aviation insurers subscribing to a hull & liability all risk policy following for AVN1A (2007) - Whether article 3 of Section IV(B) of AVN1A is a promissory warranty and/or a condition precedent to payment, or only suspensory in effect; whether insurers could rely upon a breach of article 3 in relation to a flight prior to the accident flight.

Arbitration pursuant to Section IV(C)7 of AVN1C between an additional insured and the aviation insurers subscribing to an aircraft ground risk and ferry flight declaration insurance policy (2006) - Whether the certificate of insurance provided to an additional insured by the insurers' agent formed part of or evidenced the contract of insurance between them; whether the additional insured had legal liability cover under the policy by reason of the terms of the Certificate.

Arbitration pursuant to Section IV(C)7 of AVN 1C between the insured and the aviation insurers subscribing to a hull & liability all risk policy (2005) - The meaning and effect of US Federal Aviation Regulation 61.75(e)(3); whether a pilot is entitled to fly a US registered aircraft under a US pilot licence issued on the basis of a foreign pilot licence issued pursuant to FAR Part 61.75 at a time when he is not entitled to exercise any flight privileges under his foreign licence; whether insurers were entitled to avoid the insurance policy on the grounds of material non-disclosure or misrepresentation; whether there had been a breach of Section IV(B)2 of AVN 1C and, if so, with what result.

Arbitration pursuant to AVS 103 between certain aviation war & allied peril insurers and aviation hull & liability all risk insurers insuring the same aircraft (2003) - Whether the aircraft was lost as a result of a "malicious act or act of sabotage"; whether the loss was covered by the 'all risk' or 'war risk' policy for the aircraft.

Robert gained accreditation as a mediator from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in 2005. He has experience both acting as mediator and also of participating in mediations as counsel for the parties.

For considerably more than a decade Robert has acted on behalf of the nurses', midwives' and health visitors' professional body in respect of claims brought against it by way of statutory appeal and judicial review. In this period he has appeared on its behalf in over 25 cases before the Divisional/Administrative Court. The issues raised in these cases are not restricted to points relating to professional discipline and often involve general points of administrative law and human rights law.

Robert has also advised a number of other professional bodies of similar standing in relation to professional disciplinary matters.

Notable decided cases in which Robert has acted include the following.

Before the Court of Appeal:

Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v. The Nursing and Midwifery Council and Truscott (heard before the Court of Appeal with Ruscillo v Council for the RHCP and The General Medical Council) [2005] 1 WLR 717 (Court of Appeal), (2004) ACD 76 (First Instance) - The principles applicable to an appeal by the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002.

R (Hamilton) v. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and another (2004) 79 BMLR 30 – The compatibility of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors (Professional Conduct) Rules 1993 with article 1 of protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

At First Instance, also:

R (McNicholas) v.The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2009] EWHC 627 (Admin) - The scope of the Respondent's Preliminary Proceedings Committee's entitlement to obtain legal advice and assistance when considering a case before the issue of any Notice of Proceedings pursuant to rule 9(1) of the Nurse, Midwives and Health Visitors (Professional Conduct) Rules 1993; what is required by the "due regard" requirement set by the 1993 Rules in relation to the composition of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee.

Ogango  v. The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2008] EWHC 3115 (Admin) – What should be addressed when reasons are given by the Respondent's Conduct and Competence Committee in respect of its decision on sanction.

R (Johnson & Maggs) v. The Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council [2008] EWHC 885 (Admin) – Whether and when article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights imposes a positive obligation on a prosecutor of professional disciplinary charges to gather evidence that may assist a respondent practitioner in the defence of charges laid against them; the requirements as to particularity in respect of professional disciplinary charges.

Blackett v. The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2004] EWHC 1494 (Admin) – Whether the court has the power to extend the time within which an appeal can be brought under section 12 of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997; whether CPR Pt. 52 or Pt.3(1)(2)(a) and/or the Practice Direction to Pt. 52 provides a power to extend a time limit for appeal set by statute; whether section 12 was compatible with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights if it set a rigid time limit.

Clarke v. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (2004) ACD 65 – Whether it was unreasonable for the Respondent's Professional Conduct Committee to find proven the factual elements of the charges that it did; whether the Committee should have provided fuller reasons for its decision on the facts; whether the Committee acted procedurally unfairly in failing to adjourn before reaching its decision on sanction; whether the Committee's decision to remove the practitioner's name from the register was excessive or disproportionate.

Needham v. The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2003] EWHC 1141 (Admin) – The extent and sufficiency of reasons given by the Respondent's Professional Conduct Committee in relation to its decision on sanction.

Brabazon-Drenning v. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting [2001] HRLR 6 – Entitlement to proceed in the absence of the respondent practitioner; the duty to give reasons; resuscitation of charges; whether the Respondent's Professional Conduct Committee was an independent and impartial tribunal.

R v. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting ex parte Susan Shine [2000] COD 310 - The meaning of the phrase "supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale"; in section 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

Send a copy of this CV