1. This is an action involving a great many Claimants and many defendants. It concerns the phenomenon which has now entered the nation's vocabulary, of "Economy Class Syndrome". The more technical name is "Deep Vein Thrombosis" an injury which can leave its victims crippled for life or dead.

2. Over the next 3 days this court will be considering matters of international public law, human rights and the art of the interpretation of international treaties. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the outcome of this action is of the most profound personal importance to the 56 Claimants. All say that they or their deceased relatives have been injured or killed as a result of flying in the Defendants' aircraft. All the victims suffered their injury whilst in the care of the Defendant airlines, the symptoms appearing either at the time or shortly afterwards. The register contains the names of 56 victims. Let us refer just briefly to the cases of 4 of these.

3. Emma Christoffersen was just 28 when she died following her flight back from the holiday of a lifetime In Australia. Memorably her partner Tim found in her luggage a video that had been taken of her skydiving. And in a letter to him she had written of the unique privilege of being able to see her shadow on the top of a cloud.

4. Nigel Walcott died on 5th October 2000, the day after he flew back with his wife from Barbados on British Airways, having felt unwell whilst on the flight. He was in great pain so his wife rushed him to the A & E department of their local hospital. Whilst she was parking the car he collapsed and died despite frantic efforts by the doctors and nurses to save him. He was 40 years old, fit and healthy.

5. On 6th March 2000 Freda Labarte, mother of Paul and John, returned from Canada on its national airline. She felt unwell on the flight. She died on the ambulance on the way to hospital despite vigorous attempts to resuscitate her.

6. David and Christine Pearcy had planned a millennium holiday in Dallas and Las Vegas. Christine collapsed during disembarkation at Dallas. She died shortly afterwards. They had been married 35 years.

7. We know that the number of claimants on the register represents but a fraction of the victims of this dreadful injury. We know this because the lead solicitors were themselves contacted by over 300 victims and we know from my friend representing Qantas that his clients are facing hundreds of claimants in actions in the Australian courts. Those on this register are there simply because they can afford to bring their claims because they had the good fortune to have legal expenses insurance. There are hundreds more who at present cannot.

8. DVT is not a phenomenon which strikes rarely and unexpectedly. For example, just from the tiny sample in this action no less than 5 fell victim in October 2000, 5 more the following month and 3 in December. Remember these are essentially a random selection. We are dealing with repeated, statistically predictable and relatively frequent deaths and injuries inflicted, the claimants say, by the acts and neglect of those they are paying to look after them.

9. The victims and their relatives whom we represent know that the result of the following few days in court will not be the end of their campaign for recognition and compensation. They understand that this will be no more than the overcoming of a preliminary hurdle placed in their way by the airlines who seek, in the age of the Jumbo jet, to hide behind the wording of a convention drawn up in the days of the biplane.

10. In legal argument running to over 150 pages the parties to this litigation have attempted to set out the issues which each rely upon. The claimants put their case very simply. They say that the Warsaw Convention which was drawn up in 1929 was intended to provide a sensible code which would have the dual effect of:
a. enabling a passenger to obtain redress for injuries or death suffered because of acts or omissions on the part of the carrier without having to deal with difficult jurisdictional problems or in most cases having to prove fault and
b. limiting the carrier's liability whilst enabling it to escape liability if it could establish it was not at fault.

11. We say that this scheme was both sensible and just. It had as its guiding principle the concept that an airline should be liable for its faults when they caused injury or death and should not be able to escape this by exclusion clauses and the like. It was an early form of consumer protection modelled on the Hague Rules which had long applied to carriage by sea. We say that it is simply inconceivable that the drafters or delegates could have had as their purpose or intention the exclusion of liability on the part of the airlines in plain cases where physical injury or death resulted from their culpable acts or omissions.