Huzar appeal

Vauban wrote: »

NovAng: Just to add that, like M2S, my advice would be to keep this as short as possible. !A long reply will only suggest that there is a substantial issue to argue - and the local courts don't need much of an excuse to agree a stay. !So focus on the decision of the Supreme Court (and definitely quote what they say), as well as noting the CAA's view. !This issues in your case were comprehensively looked at by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court has confirmed that this stands as law. The whole letter shouldn't be more than a couple of paras, I reckon.

Thanks Vauban, I'm working on it now - I'm trimming it down and tidying things up!

Thank you to everyone that helped, I made some changes and shortened it down, it's landed in the Courts 'in box'. I the claimant make the following objection to my case being further stayed for the following reasons:

1. It is accepted that the Defendant is denying compensation due to the fact that the Defendant is claiming an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ lead to the delay of flight ****.
2. It is accepted that an appeal was heard in the Manchester County Court before His Honour District Judge Platts (Case number: 2YN76991, Appeal ref: M13X134) between Ronald Huzar the Claimant and Appellant and Jet2.com the Defendant and the Respondent.
3. In November 2013 the Defendant stated that ‘the Court of Appeal can be expected to bring much-needed clarification to the proper interpretation of Article 5(3) of the Regulation.
4. The Court of Appeal has now heard the case and the airline was formally denied leave to appeal.
5. The Defendant refused to accept the decision of the Court of Appeal and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court for permission to Appeal the Court of Appeals decision. This application was formerly denied on the 31st October 2014 for the following reason :’ The substantive text of the Supreme Court's Order reads as follows:
‘The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused in Thomson because the application does not raise an arguable point of law; [and] permission to appeal be refused in Jet2.com because the application does not raise a point of law of general public importance and, in relation to the point of European Union law said to be raised by or in response to the application, it is not necessary to request the Court of Justice to give any ruling, because the Court's existing jurisprudence already provides sufficient answer.
6. It is my submission that the Defendant has now found a local Court case in Amsterdam, which in my opinion has no relevance whatsoever in UK Law, The Supreme Court has ruled on the decision, the Supreme Courts decision should be final and be upheld as such. The EU directive 261/2004 is for member states to decide via the law of the land of that state, and to be interpreted as such, no other country, cannot be overruled by any other pending case in some other country.


7. The UK Civil Aviation Authority issued this press release on the 31st October 2014.
Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the CAA, said:
“…. the court’s decisions in these cases bring legal clarity to this issue and we now expect airlines to abide by them when considering claims.

This is also important information for anyone who has made a claim for flight delay compensation but is waiting for a decision pending the outcome from Supreme Court. Following the decisions in these two cases, airlines should not continue to put claims on hold. Where airlines have already put claims on hold, the CAA expects airlines to revisit them and pay compensation for any eligible claims.”
8. I believe that the Defendant is acting entirely unreasonably and should now accept the decision of the Spanish AESA who ruled in my case on the 4th July 2013, subsequently the Court Of Appeal that ruled on the Huzar case, the Supreme Court and the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
9. For all the above reasons I do not believe that my case should be stayed in the Court system and wish for the Defendants application to be refused.