Commercial Court No. 1 in Alicante issued a ruling compelling Thai Airways to refund a 611 euro round-trip ticket to a resident of El Campello. The flight had been canceled during the height of the pandemic, and the claimant first sought a refund in April 2020, without success. The court’s decision not only ordered the reimbursement of the ticket price but also imposed interest and legal costs, stating that passengers should be compensated without a valid reason for denial. The ruling condemns the airline for conduct labeled as abuse of the judicial system and reckless behavior.
According to data from the Clamador.es platform, an Alicante resident had planned to fly from London to Bangkok on a route that was canceled as the pandemic intensified. The total round-trip cost stood at 611.11 euros. After the affected party first requested a refund and then engaged the platform to assist, Thai Airways remained resistant to any settlement or progress toward resolution. The airline did not provide a refund, nor did it offer bonus credits usable within one year after the alert status ended, nor extensions for the unused travel period. .
Following the exhaustion of informal dispute resolution, the passenger pursued legal action and recently obtained a favorable decision from the President of Commercial Court No. 1 in Alicante. The court ordered a refund of the ticket amount and a contribution to legal costs and interest, noting that the out-of-court claim had been filed on February 17, 2021 to recover procedural costs with a statement of recklessness.
The verdict marks a stern stance against the airline, accusing it of recklessness and malice. The court’s oral remarks emphasize that the airline carries a legal duty to respond to compensation or refund claims, operating within the regulatory framework defined by the ruling. The judgment goes further, stating that refusing compensation or refunds without justification forces passengers to take court action without legitimate reasons, thereby constituting an abuse of the judicial process and an act of malicious and reckless conduct.
In the court’s view, the involved party sought to inflate procedural expenses and deter small-value claims, effectively rendering the pursuit economically unviable. This dynamic presses against the principle that consumer rights must be safeguarded, even when the claimed sums appear modest. The decision underscores the importance of timely responses from carriers to passenger demands for refunds or compensation during extraordinary disruptions like a pandemic.
Jorge Ramos, a lawyer representing the platform reclaimers.es that supports this approach, described the penalties as a meaningful check on airline practices. He argued that airlines often enjoy a privileged position compared with travelers, who can find themselves defenseless in the absence of enforceable rulings. The attorney also reminded readers that carriers have an obligation to reimburse unused tickets when travel is canceled due to pandemic-related closures. Ramos further concurred with the notion that many travelers end up suing for small amounts, a factor that can deter action, but urged all affected passengers to pursue a claim when warranted. .