Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255;
[1999] PNLR 77; [1998] EWCA Civ 884;
[1999] 2 All ER 241; [1999] 1 WLR 9; [1998] UKHL 46; [1998] NPC 161
NEGLIGENCE, AIR INSPECTORS, DUTY OF CARE, LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY, AIRWORTHINESS, AVIATION, CARRIAGE BY AIR,
INJURY TO PASSENGER
Facts
The plaintiff sustained personal injuries when the light aircraft in which he was travelling during the test flight. The first defendant was the pilot of the aircraft, the second defendant – an inspector who had certified that the aircraft was in an airworthy condition and the third defendant – a flying association, which had issued a certificate of fitness to the aircraft under the powers granted to it by the Civil Aviation Authority under s. 3 Civil Aviation Act 1982. The plaintiff issued proceedings in negligence and the judge ruled that the second and third defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal on grounds that the plaintiff failed to show that the injuries were directly caused by them and that it was fair, just and reasonable that they were held liable.
Issues
Do air inspectors owe a duty of care to air passengers in respect to their safety during flights?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) Unlike classification societies and their employees in Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop’s Rock Marine Co Ltd, The Nicholas H [1996] AC 211,air inspectors owe a duty of care to air passengers in respect to their safety during flights.
(2) The plaintiff was entitled to assume that the appropriate safety requirements had been satisfied and that care had been taken when the aircraft was being inspected for these purposes.
(3) Unlike in Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop’s Rock Marine Co Ltd, The Nicholas H [1996] AC 211, the liability of the second and third defendants would not duplicate the liability of the first defendant as the present case refers to personal injuries whereas Marc Rich is concerned with economic loss.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Perrett v Collins [1998] EWCA Civ 884 is correctly cited and summarised. The Court of Appeal’s decision that air inspectors and certifying bodies owe a duty of care to passengers in respect of personal injury has not been overruled or materially limited by subsequent case law. The distinction drawn from Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop’s Rock Marine Co Ltd [1996] AC 211 (now also cited as The Nicholas H) between personal injury and pure economic loss contexts remains good law. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 remains in force, though readers should note it has been amended on various occasions since 1998; the core delegation of airworthiness certification powers to bodies such as the Popular Flying Association (the third defendant) under section 3 of that Act has not been abolished, though the regulatory landscape has since been shaped further by EU aviation safety law and, following Brexit, by the retained and amended framework under the Air Navigation Order 2016 (SI 2016/765) and the Civil Aviation Authority’s continued role. None of these subsequent regulatory developments affect the tortious principles established in this case. The citation at [1998] UKHL 46 appears to be an error in the article: the decision was that of the Court of Appeal, not the House of Lords, and no House of Lords appeal is recorded. Students should rely on [1998] EWCA Civ 884 as the correct primary citation.
