Gatwick Airport’s South Terminal has been heavily disrupted after a “suspected prohibited item” was discovered in luggage, leaving passengers in limbo.

Some passengers were reportedly left on planes that weren’t taking off, while others were stranded in the airport for hours after Gatwick made the announcement this morning.

Sussex Police said the explosive ordnance disposal team was being sent in “as a precaution” and a security cordon was put in place.

It now says the incident has been resolved and cleared – but warned there were still “some delays and cancellations”.

Gatwick Airport latest updates

The airport, which is the UK’s second busiest, was set to see off some 316 departing flights today, according to aviation analytics website Cirium.

But what are the rights of passengers if their flights are delayed or cancelled?

Your rights during delays

Your flight is covered by UK law if it departs from a UK airport, arrives at a UK airport on a UK or EU airline, or arrives at an EU airport on a UK airline.

When it comes to significant delays, UK law says airlines must provide you with care and assistance.

Significant delays are classed as:

• More than two hours for short-haul flights of under 1,500km (932 miles)
• More than three hours for medium-haul flights of 1,500km-3,500km (932-2,175 miles)
• More than four hours for long-haul flights of over 3,500km

Here’s what the law says the airline must provide you with until it is able to fly you to your destination:

• A reasonable amount of food and drink
• A means for you to communicate (often by refunding the cost of your calls)
• Accommodation, if you are re-routed the next day
• Transport to and from the accommodation (or your home, if you are able to return there)

It says this must be provided for you for however long delays last, irrespective of what has caused them.

Airlines may not always be able to arrange care and assistance for all passengers during major disruptions directly, but the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says you can organise the things listed for yourself and then claim the cost back from your airline later if you keep every receipt and do not spend more than is deemed reasonable.

In other words, don’t splash out on things like alcohol and luxury hotels during your wait and expect to claim your money back later.

What are your rights if your flight is cancelled?

If your flight is cancelled, the airline must either give you a refund or book you on an alternative flight.

You can get your money back for all parts of a ticket you haven’t used, the CAA says.

If you have booked a return flight and the outbound leg is cancelled, for example, you can get the full cost of the return ticket back from your airline.

“If you are a transfer passenger and you have already completed part of your journey, you are also entitled to a flight back to your original departure point when your connecting flight is cancelled and you decide not to continue your journey,” it adds.

If you still want to travel, your airline must find you an alternative flight – whether it is the next available one, or a flight at an alternative, later date.

If another airline is flying significantly sooner than yours is able to offer, you may have the right to be booked onto a rival airline’s flight, but this has to be negotiated with the company.

On last-minute cancellations, Naveen Dittakavi, founder and chief executive of Next Vacay, said: “If you’re already at the airport once the flight is cancelled, the best thing you can do is stay calm – you are protected against many things that might go wrong.

“Try calling the airline helpline rather than waiting to speak directly with the airport staff. The helpline is often more flexible and may provide you with an e-credit or voucher, or flexibility to change your travel dates quickly.”

Can you get compensation?

In some cases, airlines may have to provide compensation if your flight arrives at its destination more than three hours late – but that is only if the delay is deemed to be your airline’s fault.

Disruptions caused by things deemed “extraordinary circumstances” are not eligible for compensation, according to the CAA.

A large part of Gatwick Airport’s South Terminal has been evacuated after a “suspected prohibited item” was discovered in luggage and a bomb disposal team has been deployed, police said.

Sussex Police said the explosive ordnance disposal team was being sent in “as a precaution” and a security cordon is in place.

The airport, which is the UK’s second busiest, said the terminal was evacuated after a “security incident”.

In a post on X, it said: “Safety and security of our passengers and staff remains our top priority.

“We are working hard to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.”

It said the North Terminal was still operating normally.

Footage on social media taken outside the airport showed crowds of travellers heading away from the terminal building.

“Arrived at London Gatwick for routine connection. Got through customs to find out they’re evacuating the entire airport,” one passenger said.

“Even people through security are being taken outside. Trains shut down and 1,000s all over the streets and carparks waiting.”

Another said passengers near the gates were being told to stay there and not go back to the departure lounge.

Gatwick Express said its trains were not calling at Gatwick Airport.

“Gatwick Airport will not be served until further notice,” it tweeted.

“This is due to the police and emergency services dealing with an incident at the airport.

“At present, the station and airport are being evacuated whilst the police are dealing with an incident. We would recommend delaying your journey until later this morning.”

It said local buses were also affected and would be unable to run to the airport.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Hundreds of people affected by the Manchester Arena bombing cannot continue legal action against MI5, judges have ruled.

More than 300 people, including survivors and those bereaved by the 2017 attack at an Ariana Grande concert, brought a case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), claiming failures to take “appropriate measures” to prevent the incident infringed their human rights.

In a ruling on Friday, Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey said the cases could not proceed as they were brought too late.

Lord Justice Singh said: “We are particularly conscious of the importance of the rights concerned… We are also conscious of the horrendous impact of the atrocity on the claimants and their families.

“Any reasonable person would have sympathy for them.

“The grief and trauma which they have suffered, particularly where young children were killed, is almost unimaginable.

“Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed.”

Lord Justice Singh acknowledged that while the tribunal “readily understand” why the legal claims were not filed until after the final report from the inquiry into the attack, “real expedition” was needed at that point.

The judge added: “We bear in mind the other matters that had to be investigated and arrangements which had to be put in place but, in our view, the filing of the proceedings was not given the priority which, assessed objectively, it should have been.”

Had the claims gone ahead, the judge noted the security services would have needed to “divert time and resources to defending these proceedings rather than their core responsibilities” – which includes preventing future attacks.

Salman Abedi killed 22 people and injured hundreds when he detonated a rucksack bomb at the end of an Ariana Grande show at Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.

Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon and Broudie Jackson Canter, three of the law firms representing complainants affected, said the ruling was “extremely disappointing” for their clients.

In a statement, the firms said: “Ever since the attack in May 2017, our clients have had to endure continued delays but have done so with great patience and understanding in the hope that by allowing all legal processes to be fully explored, transparency and justice would be achieved.

“It took almost six years for the failings of MI5 to be revealed, confirmed when the inquiry chair published his volume three findings in March 2023, in which he said MI5 had missed a ‘significant opportunity’ to prevent the attack.

“This report concluded that within this six-year period, the security service corporate witnesses X and J gave evidence on oath that had presented an inaccurate picture, and the same inaccurate picture had been presented to Lord Anderson when he compiled his report in December 2017.”

Read more from Sky News:
‘Blood on their hands’: Could MI5 have prevented the Manchester attack?
Manchester attack survivors awarded £45k after suing man who claims it was a hoax
Police officers who went for kebab on night of terror attack given final warnings

The law firms said following these findings, their clients believed the IPT would “provide the route to the formal vindication of their human rights”.

The firms added: “We are disappointed that time is one of the reasons now being used against them to prevent their claims progressing. Seven years have now passed since the atrocity in May 2017 – six years of that seven-year delay was caused by MI5.

“This judgment certainly doesn’t exonerate MI5. There were failings by MI5 and multiple other parties leading up to and on the actual evening of 22 May 2017 and collectively we continue to support our clients in their fight for full accountability and justice.”

The inquiry into the bombing found it might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence received in the months before the attack.

The agency’s director-general, Ken McCallum, expressed deep regret that such intelligence was not obtained.

Two pieces of information about Abedi were assessed at the time by the security service to not relate to terrorism.

But inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders said, having heard from MI5 witnesses at the hearings, he considered that did not present an “accurate picture”.

Lawyers for those affected previously said the inquiry found there was a “real possibility” that one of the pieces of intelligence could have obtained information which may have led to actions preventing the attack.

And at the hearing earlier this month, Pete Weatherby KC, for those affected, described the IPT claims as “the next step” in vindication for his clients after the inquiry’s findings.