Monarch delays & Compensations. Listed flights denied in O.P.

richardw wrote: »

No it won't be OK.

If you can't get the names in the claimant box, then they won't both be claimants. The airlines' lawyers know this.

So you don't use MCOL, it really is that simple.

You just fill form N1 in, with claimants names in the claimant box! and then get the form to your local court.

Please don't repeat that it'll be ok. If you do a bit of an online search you'll find plenty of cases where it wasn't.

1) The Defendant was at all material times acting the in the capacity of an air carrier for the·purposesof these proceedings.

2) The Claimant is put to strict proof as to whetherhe was actually on the said flight.

3) Subject to paragraph 2, the Defendantadmits that the Claimant's flightwas delayed.

4) The Defendant submits that it isnot liable to the Claimantfor flight ZB249 Sharm ElSheikh (SSH) toLondon Gatwick. The Defendant intends to rely upon the defence of extraordinarycircumstances as provided under EU Regulation 261/2004.

5) The Defendant submits that the aircraftscheduled to operatethe Claimant's flightsuffered a technical fault on the outbound sector in London Gatwick. For clarity the outbound sector was the flight previous to the Claimant’s flight, namely ZB248 (LGW- SSH). Passengers had boarded the aircraft and the aircraft was being pushed back from the stand when suddenly and unexpectedly cracks began to appear in the windscreen on the right hand side.

6) An aircraft cannot fly with cracks in the windscreen as once the aircraft is airborne the cracks will spread and there is a risk that the cabin will begin losing pressure. Consequently the aircraft had to return to stand and the passengers unloaded whilst necessary engineering work was undertaken.

7) As a result the Claimant's flight ZB248 was delayed. The Defendant submits that this constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.

8) The Defendant intends to rely upon the decisioninWallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia) where the court held that "technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in thenormal exerciseof the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control". The Defendant submits that cracks in the windscreen can arise without any initial indications given they are subject to extreme changes in temperature and altitude. Consequently the cracks and the resulting delay were in fact beyond the Defendant's control.

9) Furthermore the Defendant submitsthat it satisfies the second limb of the test of Wallentin. Namely 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipmentand the financial means at its disposal, itwould not have been able...to prevent the extraordinarycircumstances with which it was confronted', fromleading to the delay. The Defendantsubmits that the crack in the windscreenand resulting delay were unavoidable and that it took all reasonable measures within its power and resourcesto try and avoid and at bestminimise the said delay. The Defendant reiterates Paragraph 9 of the Defence herein.

10) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimantas alleged or atall.

11) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to Claimant for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.

12) The Defendant admits that the Claimant has an inherentright to interestsubject to liability being established.

The Defendant believes that the facts statedin this defence are true to the best of its belief and knowledge.

richardw wrote: »

Vauban, Re "The Defendantsubmits that the crack in the windscreenand resulting delay were unavoidable and that it took all reasonable measures within its power and resourcesto try and avoid and at bestminimise the said delay"

They haven't said where their long sector standby aircraft was.