Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

xsally83x wrote: »

How long before the court date do Thomson normally settle if they aren't going to go to court?

Assuming that they've put in a defence and the case has been listed, the next step is for Thomson to file and serve their evidence. If they have decided to admit your claim, they would probably do so at that stage but there have been cases where they have decided to give in at a very late stage including (as in my case) at the Court itself.
So I'm afraid that there is no real definition of "normally in these cases.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Surely Thomson's letter regarding the 2 year limit ought to be re-written to say:

"We currently believe claims that are presented that are two or more years old fall under the Montreal Convention. This is currently being challenged in the court of appeal. (case ref: Thomson v Dawson) due to be heard in May 2014. We are unable to process claims until this is resolved either way. You can either wait until the result or continue with legal proceedings which we will request are stayed until the matter is clarified".

I dont think they are going to rewrite their response in the way you suggest as it will encourage more people to pursue a case. If they can fob people off and save money they are going to continue to do so even though it is deceitful and wrong.
If as everyone expects the appeal goes against them they are sure to find another way to try and fob off the majority of claimants. You can be sure that they already have someone working on a long winded and confusing future response.

xsally83x wrote: »

Thank you, they have filed and served all their evidence and my court date is this week, see what happens. I will update everyone with my progress

Good luck - the judge will probably end up staying, but I hope it goes well for you. Fingers crossed.

xsally83x wrote: »

I havent included the Dawson case in my defense so im hoping it wont get stayed?

I think you are confusing Dawson with Huzar? (Your delay was in 2013, I recall, so Dawson - which is about the two-year deadline point - doesn't come into play).

Huzar is the judgement about technical faults never being extraordinary, and always inherent. This goes a bit beyond the Wallentin judgement (which has never been appealed, as is binding) which says tech faults are only extraordinary if their origin is not inherent in the normal operation of the airline concerned (eg terrorism or sabotage).

Plenty of folk still get stayed, even if not including Huzar, as the judge is tempted by the prospect of not having to make a difficult decision knowing the matter will be ruled on by a higher court. But some judges prove more robust - let's see!

xsally83x wrote: »

I havent included the Dawson case in my defense so im hoping it wont get stayed?

Even if you havent used them, the case will still probably be stayed, mine was.