A NURSE who suffered a knee injury on a British Airways flight has vowed to continue her battle for compensation.

Beverley Barclay, of The Chestnuts, Abingdon, lost her fight at the High Court last month when Judge Laurence West-Knights accepted BA's argument that she had not suffered an accident while getting into her seat on a jumbo jet at Phoenix airport, Arizona.

However, the 49-year-old has appealed against the decision, taking her fight to the Court of Appeal this summer.

Mrs Barclay, who works part time at St Mary's Convent, Wantage, and also lectures at local colleges, said she was fighting for the principle of the matter.

She wants compensation of £24,400 from BA.

She said: "I'm not out to get money from BA, it is the principle of the matter, that I sustained an accident on board the aircraft but they are basically saying it wasn't an accident.

"I'm not out to get millions and millions of pounds from BA. That isn't my intention."

Mrs Barclay's travel insurance has covered the estimated £25,000 court costs.

She said: "My barrister has given me a 67 to 75 per cent chance on winning, which is very high. He is very confident."

Mrs Barclay spent four days in hospital following the incident in August 2005. It is likely that she will need more surgery.

The mother-of-three had just boarded the Boeing 747 bound for Heathrow, when she slipped on a plastic strip while getting into her seat.

She suffered a serious ligament injury to her right knee and claimed compensation from BA under the 1999 Montreal Convention - which makes airlines liable to passengers who suffer "bodily injury" in an "accident" on board an aircraft.

The only issue in the case was whether what Mrs Barclay suffered was "an accident" within the meaning of the convention.

Judge West-Knights accepted BA's arguments that it was not, and that what Mrs Barclay had suffered was a "mere fall", for which the airline could not be held liable.

However, he gave Mrs Barclay some hope of eventually winning her case when he said that in his view, the law relating to the definition of "accident" in the Convention had "taken a wrong turn".

He said that the law, as it stands, appears "unduly to limit what is an accident, and needed to be nudged back on track by the Court of Appeal".