A WOMAN who suffered crippling injuries in a paragliding accident has won a landmark victory in her fight for more than a million pounds compensation.

Norma Disley, then a 33-year-old maths teacher, from Bolton, was riding in a tandem paraglider with an instructor when a landing manoeuvre went wrong on October 29, 1997.

The paraglider plummeted to the ground and Miss Disley, of Tonge Moor Road, suffered extensive injuries to her limbs. She sued the instructor, Marc Levine, who took her up on her fourth training flight in a "Fat Willy" tandem paraglider from Edenfield Hill, Lancashire.

And yesterday three Appeal Court judges rejected a main part of Mr Levine's defence -- that he could not be liable for negligence or breach of contract because the paraglider was an "aircraft" being used for "carriages" of a passenger under the Warsaw Convention.

The Convention places strict limits on the liabilities of air carriers to passengers injured during flights.

Lord Justice Henry, sitting with Lord Justice Buxton and Mr Justice Bodey, ruled that, as the flight was for instruction purposes rather than merely "carriage", the Convention did not apply.

The court's decision opens the way for Miss Disley to pursue her claim against Mr Levine, of Higher Lane, Whitefield, who runs the Airtrak Levine Paragliding School.

But she must still prove that he was either negligent or in breach of contract.

It was on her fourth day of instruction that Mr Levine attempted a landing manoeuvre known as "Big Ears" in which the outer sides of the canopy are collapsed to cause a rapid vertical descent.

During the manoeuvre, the left wing collapsed and the paraglider plunged to the ground. Mr Levine was in sole control of the aircraft at the time.

The court's ruling means there will now have to be another trial. A date for the next hearing has yet to be set.

None of the parties were in the Appeal Court yesterday but following the case, Miss Disley said: "It won't make much of an immediate difference to my life because nothing has been proven. What I do from here will be a matter between me and my solicitor." A WOMAN who suffered crippling injuries in a paragliding accident has won a landmark victory in her fight for more than a million pounds compensation.

Norma Disley, then a 33-year-old maths teacher, from Bolton, was in a tandem paraglider with an instructor when a landing manoeuvre went wrong on October 29, 1997.

The paraglider plummeted to the ground and Miss Disley, of Tonge Moor Road, suffered extensive injuries to her limbs. She sued the instructor, Marc Levine, who took her up on her fourth training flight in a "Fat Willy" tandem paraglider from Edenfield Hill, Lancashire.

This week three Appeal Court judges rejected a main part of Mr Levine's defence -- that he could not be liable for negligence or breach of contract because the paraglider was an "aircraft" being used for "carriages" of a passenger under the Warsaw Convention.

The Convention places strict limits on the liabilities of air carriers to passengers injured during flights.

Lord Justice Henry, sitting with Lord Justice Buxton and Mr Justice Bodey, ruled that, as the flight was for instruction purposes rather than merely "carriage", the Convention did not apply.

The court's decision opens the way for Miss Disley to pursue her claim against Mr Levine, of Higher Lane, Whitefield, who runs the Airtrak Levine Paragliding School.

But she must still prove that he was either negligent or in breach of contract.

It was on her fourth day of instruction that Mr Levine attempted a landing manoeuvre known as "Big Ears" in which the outer sides of the canopy are collapsed to cause a rapid vertical descent.

During the manoeuvre, the left wing collapsed and the paraglider plunged to the ground. Mr Levine was in sole control of the paraglider at the time.

The court's ruling means there will now have to be another trial. A date for the next hearing has yet to be set.

None of the parties were in the Appeal Court but following the case, Miss Disley said: "It won't make much of an immediate difference to my life because nothing has been proven. What I do from here will be a matter between me and my solicitor."