A legal dispute involving Ryanair and a passenger who lost luggage during a trip from Edinburgh to Copenhagen has developed into a lengthy court battle that is now approaching its third year. The case centers on a claim filed Rosie McGrane after a suitcase containing running equipment electronic devices and personal items failed to arrive with her flight in September 2023. McGrane had travelled to Denmark to participate in the Copenhagen Half Marathon but instead found herself navigating a complicated compensation process. What began as a standard airline baggage claim has since evolved into a legal case being examined the Edinburgh Sheriff Court as both sides contest responsibility and compensation.
The dispute intensified after a court ruling issued in July required the airline to pay compensation totaling more than four thousand four hundred pounds for the lost luggage and related expenses. According to the case record the judgment covered the value of the lost belongings along with emergency purchases made after the bag failed to arrive. However the airline did not immediately settle the claim and later submitted an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling. The appeal was filed on the final permissible day under court procedure which has prolonged the case and pushed the dispute toward another hearing scheduled for late March 2026.
The original incident occurred when McGrane’s suitcase went missing during the flight from Edinburgh to Copenhagen. The luggage reportedly contained specialized running gear electronic devices and a Scottish flag that carried strong personal significance because it was intended to honor her late brother during the marathon event. McGrane and her travel companion said they reported the missing bag immediately to airport staff after arriving in Copenhagen. According to their account the following months were filled with repeated communication attempts with the airline’s claims department which they described as confusing and unproductive.
The airline has challenged this version of events in its legal appeal arguing that no official baggage complaint was properly registered at the airport on arrival. According to the airline’s position the absence of a formal report suggests that the suitcase may have been delivered or that the claim did not follow the required reporting procedure. The dispute over whether the complaint was properly filed has become a central point in the court proceedings as lawyers for both sides examine documentation communication records and airport reporting procedures.
The case entered a new phase in March 2025 when McGrane’s husband Chris who previously worked as a sheriff clerk initiated formal legal action through Scotland’s simplified civil procedure process. When the airline initially failed to respond to the court process a default judgment was issued ordering the company to compensate the claimant. Enforcing the decree proved challenging because officials attempting to deliver legal documents at Edinburgh Airport found that many operational staff were employed through subcontracted services rather than directly the airline. The legal notice was eventually delivered to the airline’s headquarters in Dublin.
As the dispute continues legal arguments are now focusing on the Montreal Convention which is the international agreement governing airline responsibility for lost or damaged luggage. The convention establishes a principle of strict liability meaning airlines can be held responsible for missing baggage even when subcontractors handle the luggage. At the same time the treaty also sets limits on compensation amounts which could affect the final outcome of the case. Lawyers involved in the dispute say the upcoming hearing will examine whether the claim should follow the convention’s compensation limits or the broader damages initially awarded the court.
For McGrane and her family the dispute has come to represent a broader issue related to passenger rights and airline accountability. They argue that travelers should be able to expect reliable handling of luggage regardless of whether a flight is operated a low cost airline or a traditional carrier. As the court prepares for the next stage of hearings the case continues to attract attention as an example of how routine travel issues can evolve into complex legal battles involving international aviation regulations and consumer protection rules.
