The Dekagram: 15th June 2026

We haven’t brought our readers news from North of the border for some time – this week Imogen Todd examines a Scottish case on the disapplication of qualified one way costs shifting on account of unreasonable conduct, whilst Sarah Prager KC draws attention to a CMA investigation into Ryanair’s pricing practices as they relate to child passengers. Could a group claim against the airline be in the offing?

The CMA Flexes its New Powers: Ryanair under Fire

Readers will be aware that the Competition and Markets Authority has some sparkly new powers, and it seems that they can’t wait to start using them. The subject matter of their latest investigation? Why, none other than our friends at Ryanair. The CMA has opened an investigation into Ryanair UK Limited and its parent company Ryanair DAC, focusing on whether it is in breach of consumer protection legislation in its requirement for passengers travelling with a child to pay a mandatory additional fee in order to sit next to that child (where doing so is compulsory); the CMA regards this as being a potentially unfair contract term, and is also examining the presentation of the fee on Ryanair’s website, and in particular whether the fee is included in the total price the consumer sees at the beginning of the purchase process.

Ryanair’s terms and conditions require at least one parent to sit with children aged between two and eleven when they fly. This is done through what Ryanair calls a “mandatory family seat”, which the parent must pay for in order to secure a seat next to them for their child. For all other passengers, reserving a seat is optional. The fee applies to both outbound and return flights and typically costs around £8 each way. CMA evidence suggests this approach to seating is used across the majority of Ryanair’s UK routes, and includes disabled children within its ambit.

The CMA is investigating whether Ryanair’s approach to seat reservations may mean that parents are being charged for the airline to meet its child safety and disability‑related obligations as set out under aviation rules, and is to investigate to determine whether or not this practice offends consumer law as putting the consumer at a disadvantage. Unfair terms are not legally binding on customers, and the CMA can take enforcement action to stop businesses using them, as well as imposing sanctions such as fines.

It is perhaps of significance that Ryanair is the only major airline flying out of the UK to impose this mandatory charge; their airlines offer to seat children with a parent or guardian without the need for a paid-for adult seat reservation, or allocate seats together automatically and free of charge during the booking process. Moreover, Ryanair’s website refers to “free reserved seats for kids under 12”, but although the child’s reservation is free, the adult accompanying them must pay a booking fee to access these seats. Which seems, if not disingenuous, at the very least somewhat confusing.

As part of the investigation, the CMA will also examine whether the mandatory family seat fee is “dripped” during the booking process and whether consumers are presented with the total price that they will pay at a sufficiently early stage. Under consumer law, businesses must show a total price that includes all unavoidable charges, rather than adding – or “dripping” – extra charges separately or later in the process. This ensures consumers can effectively compare prices and understand the true cost of what they are buying before committing to the process.

The investigation raises the intriguing prospect of whether, if the CMA finds that Ryanair has indeed breached consumer protection laws, a civil group action will follow. Given that the airline is an outlier in this area, and that there certainly appears on the face of it to be a lack of pricing transparency, this author would not bet against such an outcome.

The case will be updated in December 2026 – the wheels of CMA justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

About the Author

Called to the Bar in 1997, Sarah Prager KC has been listed in the legal directories in travel and personal injury law for many years, and, more recently, listed in aviation as well. Together with Matthew Chapman KC, Jack Harding, Dominique Smith and Tom Yarrow, she co-writes the leading legal textbook in the area, and has been involved in most of the leading cases in the field in the last few decades. She undertakes purely domestic high value personal injury work as well as cross border work and has a wealth of experience of difficult and sensitive cases, including serious sexual assault and cases involving children.

Disapplying QOWCS: a Scottish Tale

In the Scottish case of Hazelanne McKillop v Sean Woods and Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance UK Limited [2026] SC EDIN 63, Sherriff Iain W Nicol considered whether the rules on Qualified One-Way Cost Shifting (QOCS) should be disapplied due to the unreasonable conduct of the pursuer’s legal representatives.

The claim arose from a road traffic accident on 21^st June 2023, after which the pursuer continued to experience symptoms beyond the period originally anticipated, and updates regarding her medical condition had not been adequately obtained or disclosed.

The court heard a motion to disapply QOCS after the proof was discharged to allow further medical investigation. The motion was founded on the conduct of the pursuer’s agents, which was alleged to be manifestly unreasonable under Scottish law.

The court reiterated that QOCS protection should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. “Manifestly unreasonable” conduct requires behaviour that is clearly and obviously unreasonable; mere carelessness or ineptitude will not ordinarily justify disapplication. Whether the threshold is met depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Although the initial medical prognosis suggested that the pursuer’s symptoms would resolve within a year, her ongoing condition remained uncertain. The court found that the pursuer’s agents had several opportunities to obtain updated medical information and clarify her position, including in advance of the pre-trial meeting. Their failure to do so by March 2026 was held to meet the high threshold of being manifestly unreasonable and justified the disapplication of QOCS. Accordingly, the motion was granted. The expenses incurred from the pre-trial meeting onwards, including those associated with the discharge of the proof and related motions, were awarded against the pursuer’s legal representatives.

The conclusion of McKillop is somewhat surprising and contrasts recent High Court of England & Wales jurisprudence. In Read v North Middlesex Hospital Trust [2025] EWHC 1603 (KB), Master Thornett only disapplied QOCS where the Claimant’s pleadings remained inadequately particularised despite an unless order affording the Claimant the opportunity to remedy the error, among other issues with the claim.

Claimant solicitors should heed the cautionary message arising from McKillop and exercise particular diligence in the conduct of their cases when litigating in Scottish courts.

About the Author

Imogen Todd was called in 2020. Having completed pupillage at Deka Chambers, including a period under the tutelage of Dominique Smith, she was taken on in October 2025. She now undertakes a broad civil practice, with a strong track record in personal injury, travel claims, inquests, stage 3 hearings, infant approval hearings and credit hire litigation.