Refundmore: Specialists in flight delays, flight cancellations and compensation
Has your flight been delayed, cancelled or overbooked? In many cases, you may be entitled to up to €600 in compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 .
We will help you get the compensation you are entitled to, even if the airline says no. And if necessary, we will take the case all the way to court.
We don't give up just because the airline makes it difficult.
Why Refundmore are experts in passenger rights
We only work with air passenger rights. Nothing else.
At Refundmore, we do not deal with all kinds of legal areas. We specialise 100 percent in flight delays, flight cancellations and compensation.
We have been doing this for many years.
This means that we know the airline world from the inside.
We know:
what excuses they use over and over again
how their internal processes work
and exactly when they break the rules
We can distinguish between a genuine refusal and a refusal that is not legally valid. This insight is crucial. And this is exactly where many passengers give up. We don't.
1. We take cases to court
Many airlines only pay when they are faced with a genuine legal claim. That's why our work doesn't stop at an email or an online form.
We:
bring cases before district courts, high courts (Supreme Courts)
document the airlines' lack of evidence
enforce compensation, interest and legal costs
Our experience is not based on assumptions or theories – it is based on actual verdicts and concrete decisions.
2. We win time and time again against the largest airlines
Our cases show a clear pattern. Courts rule in favour of passengers when we bring cases against airlines.
We have won thousands of cases against, among others:
3. We have access to courts around Europe
Refundmore is part of the Flightright Group, Europe's largest player in the enforcement of air passenger rights.
This is crucial for you as a passenger:
If your case does not belong in the UK courts, it will not be closed. It will be transferred and processed in the country where the case is to be legally pursued.
We therefore have access to:
courts in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Scandinavia and several other countries
local lawyers and litigation experts
documented case law throughout the EU
In short: your case will be brought where it can be won.
Significant verdicts from our work over the years
Over the years, we have achieved a number of important victories. Here you can see a selection of cases that have been significant not only for individual passengers, but for the rights of many passengers.
2019: The airline's internal strikes are not a valid excuse
Copenhagen City Court, BS-26811/2019-KBH (SAS)
SAS refused compensation, citing pilot strike. The court ruled that strikes among the airline's own staff are part of normal operations and therefore do not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
Implications for passengers: Airlines cannot use internal work stoppages as an excuse to avoid paying compensation for cancellations.
_
2020: Bird strike does not automatically exempt the airline
Ystad District Court, FT 474-19 (Thomas Cook Airlines)
The court emphasised that the airline has the burden of proof that all reasonable measures have been taken. In this case, the airline was unable to document that the delay could not have been avoided or reduced.
Implications for passengers: Even external events do not automatically exempt the airline. If the airline cannot document its efforts, passengers are still entitled to compensation.
_
2020: Extra expenses may be claimed in addition to standard compensation
Attunda District Court, T 5259-19 (Norwegian)
The court ruled that EU Regulation 261 does not exclude compensation for necessary additional expenses incurred by the passenger as a result of the airline's failure to handle the situation.
Implications for passengers: In addition to standard compensation, passengers may be reimbursed for additional costs such as new flight tickets if the airline has not offered a viable solution.
_
2021: The airline must be able to prove that the passenger was informed
Svea Court of Appeal, FT 404-21 (Norwegian)
Norwegian presented internal system extracts as proof that the passenger had been informed of the cancellation. The court found that this was not sufficient without documentation of the content of the communication.
Implications for passengers: It is the airline's responsibility to document what the passenger was specifically informed about. If the documentation is missing, the cancellation triggers compensation.
_
2021: Missed connections may trigger compensation
Västra hovrätt, FT 2066-21 (Finnair)
The court ruled that it is the total journey and the time of arrival at the final destination that are decisive. Even a short delay on the first part of the journey can therefore entitle you to compensation if it causes you to miss your connection and arrive more than three hours late.
Implications for passengers: Airlines cannot reject claims on the grounds that the initial delay was minimal. If you miss a connection and arrive significantly later, you may be entitled to full compensation.
_
2021: EU law takes precedence over the airline's own terms and conditions
Västra hovrätt, FT 5186-20 (Norwegian)
The court ruled that airlines' standard terms and conditions cannot limit passengers' rights under EU Regulation 261.
Implications for passengers: Airlines cannot circumvent EU legislation. Your rights apply regardless of what is stated in the ticket conditions.
_
2022: No documentation means no exception
Copenhagen City Court, BS-34897/2021-KBH (Norwegian)
Explanations about turbulence and injured crew were rejected because they were not documented. The court emphasised that unsubstantiated claims are not sufficient to avoid compensation.
Implications for passengers: Airlines must be able to prove their explanations. If they cannot, passengers are entitled to compensation.
_
2022: Airlines must offer real and concrete rebooking
Copenhagen City Court, BS-17021/2019-KBH (Ryanair)
Ryanair referred to a standard email with general self-service options. The court ruled that this did not fulfil the airline's obligations under the EU regulation.
Implications for passengers: Airlines must offer concrete and usable rebooking options. If they fail to do so, passengers can purchase new tickets themselves and claim reimbursement of the costs.
_
2024: Bad weather does not exempt airlines from their obligation to minimise delays
Randers Court, BS-27376/2024-RAN (Ryanair)
Although bad weather was recognised as an extraordinary circumstance, the court ruled that Ryanair still had a duty to actively try to minimise the delay, including by rebooking passengers onto other flights or airlines.
Implications for passengers: Even when the airline has a valid excuse, passengers may still be entitled to compensation if the airline does not do enough to get passengers to their destination as quickly as possible.
_
2024: Third-party strike does not automatically cancel compensation obligation
Copenhagen City Court, BS-42910/2022-KBH (Norwegian)
Norwegian referred to a strike by a handling agent as an extraordinary circumstance. The court recognised the strike but found that the airline had not documented that it had investigated alternative solutions such as rebooking to other airlines.
Implications for passengers: Airlines must be able to prove that they have actively attempted to reduce delays. Otherwise, even external strikes will trigger compensation.
_
2025: Airlines must prove timely information about cancellations
Copenhagen City Court, BS-42780/2023-KBH (Turkish Airlines)
Turkish Airlines claimed that passengers were informed of the cancellation more than 14 days before departure. The court rejected internal system extracts as sufficient evidence, as the content of the message could not be documented.
Implications for passengers: The burden of proof lies with the airline. If they cannot document what the passenger was specifically told, the cancellation triggers compensation.
_
2025: Standard emails do not exempt the airline from liability
Eastern High Court, BS-47236/2025-OLR (Ryanair)
Ryanair argued that a general information email and links to self-service were sufficient to avoid liability. The High Court rejected this and ruled that the airline had not documented that all reasonable measures had been taken.
Implications for passengers: Airlines cannot rely solely on automated emails and standard solutions. Lack of documentation means that passengers are entitled to compensation, reimbursement and interest.
_
2026: The airline must offer the fastest realistic rebooking
Kolding District Court, BS-19202/2024-KOL (KLM)
KLM offered a rebooking with a delay of more than 9 hours, even though a significantly faster solution was available. The court ruled that the airline had not fulfilled its obligation to offer rebooking at the first opportunity.
Implications for passengers: If the airline does not offer the best possible rebooking, the passenger can purchase new tickets themselves and claim both compensation and a full refund of the costs.
Start your case today
We only charge a fee if we receive payment from the airline.
👉 Check whether you are entitled to compensation for flight delays or cancellations