Huzar appeal

Mr. Huzar has been paid.

Jet2 are not themselves appealing Huzar to the ECJ, but are rather arguing that another (Dutch) case referred to the ECJ should be heard before any further 261/04 claims are settled. This is bunkum, and one hopes that the Courts will deal with the matter consistently. I'm not sure whether there will be central guidance issued or not. I asked Bott&Co about this yesterday. They confirmed that they were opposing the stays and that "whatever happens to our case *should* apply to the other cases".

Anyone who get this letter from jet2.com

Counter letter


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. As the Court Of Appeal has already ruled on the Huzar case, the Supreme Court and the UK Civil Aviation Authority has amended it's advice accordingly.


Wallentin has already established what constitutes EC's by the ECJ and no need for anymore clarity from them.

The supreme court is the UK highst court and Jet2.com lost in all counts.

The Supreme Court also rejected any atempt to refer this to the ECJ so why would you think UK courts would overide the SC here in the UK over a Dutch case being delt with at local level?

a. The court has the power to stay proceedings pursuant to CPR r 3.1(2)(f).
b. We submit that it is normal and appropriate for the court to stay proceeding where an issue of law in the case has arisen in another case which is the subject of appeal. This is precisely the position which led to the stay pending the determination of the appeal in the Huzar case.

This only applies to UK law.

c. This is particularly the case where it is a reference to the CJEU which will clarify the proper interpretation of the Regulation, and will in the long run save court time and the parties‘ time and costs.

The Supreme Courts rejection statement specifically states it does not need to consult ECJ on EU law.

"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."

Like other final courts, the UKSC is, in the areas of European law in which the United Kingdom has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), under the duty imposed by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to ask the CJEU to give preliminary rulings concerning:

1. the interpretation of the Treaties; and
2. the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;

where such a question is raised in proceedings before it and it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment.
Where an application for permission to appeal raises such a question, the UKSC does not, when considering whether in the light of that question to grant permission or to make a reference to the CJEU, apply a test of whether the question is of general public importance.

e. There could well be significant and irremediable prejudice to the Defendant if these proceedings are not stayed. A judgment from the CJEU on the preliminary reference would be binding on the Court, yet, in the absence of astay, the Court would determine the issue without the benefit of the CJEU's ruling on the central issue of the case.

They have already done that and lost on all counts, this case applies to Dutch law wich is set up that most cases are refered to the ECJ on questions of EU law. Wallentin & Sturgeon have establish what arealy is there.

4.As is evident from the reference, the CJ EU has been asked to consider specifically anumber of issues, including the matters which were the subject of the Huzar appeal.We will if necessary deal with this in submission but, for instance, it covers:
a. The relationship between the two limbs in Wallentin-Hermann.
b. The relationship between "unexpected fight safety shortcomings" and "extraordinary circumstances".
c. The meaning of "inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity".
d. Whether technical problems can be extraordinary circumstances.

All this has already been through the UK courts, Huzar and Wallentin and has been established.

Anyone who gets this letter should object in the strongest terms.

My feeling on this.

NoviceAngel wrote: »

This is what I was also wondering.

It could be open say for 'Manchester' to hear the cases and 'Newcastle' not to!

There will have to be some collective decision taken by the Courts, or this will be a lottery dependant upon where you live.

It sounds like Bott & Co have things in order, and I'm hoping that the ridiculous position taken by Jet2 is given the contempt it deserves by our legal system.

Personally, I don't think their letter - which someone has posted elsewhere - is all that persuasive. It rather side-steps the fact that the Supreme Court has considered this and upheld the position of the Court of Appeal. So the matter is settled, at least as it applies to English law. I'd be surprised if it got traction - but let's see ...

also AFAIK, the Dutch case is not subject to an appeal? Not that that is relevant either

legal_magpie wrote: »

Much as I admire Batman, I consider that his suggested letter on the subject of a stay is far too long and overkill. Case of "the Lady doth protest too much methinks".

The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter and its decision is binding on all lower Courts. A short letter to the Court pointing this out and opposing the stay should be enough. Keep your lengthy spiel for the hearing, if necessary. I do not believe that the Courts will grant any further stays.

I wrote some of it originally - it was three pages long - it did get shortened down with the help of others on here - Vauban made exactly the same point as you, where were you earlier this week? You could have written a reply for us!