Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

Chris_h_b wrote: »

Jet2 are telling me they will not consider a claim for a family and each member must claim separately.

These seems absurd as children are involved.


Does anyone have a view if this is correct or not?

Chris - when dealing with Jet2 you have to accept they will treat you like s*** and try every trick in the book to avoid paying you one penny, even if it means spending more on legal fees.
As NoviceAngel (now ExpereincedAngel) says - go N1 paper route, not MCOl then you can claim for everyone. Most judges will see sense that it is reasonbable to hear 2,3,4 or more identical claims in one go.

Seems like Jet2 legal guys get around a bit ....


"A team from Bird & Bird worked closely with counterparts from Freshfields and members of the Monarch in-house legal team jointly to advise the Monarch Group on its recent major refinancing and transformational programme. Monarch has been a significant and valued client of Bird & Bird since 2010.
The restructuring of the Monarch Group involved the sale by the existing shareholders, principally the Swiss Mantegazza family, of their entire interests in the Group, the acquisition of a majority of their interest by Greybull Capital LLP and the introduction of £125m of new financing facilities. Preparing the Group for sale, a key focus for Bird & Bird, involved the implementation of substantial cost savings, revised agreements with the airline’s aircraft lessors (including the early return of 8 aircraft to the lessors), a redundancy and employment modernisation programme and the restructuring of existing finance arrangements. The Bird & Bird team advised particularly on the financing, aircraft lease negotiation and employment aspects of the transaction.
Simon Chamberlain, lead partner, Bird & Bird, commented: "This was a critical transaction for the future of the Monarch Group and it was particularly rewarding to be able to contribute significantly to its transformation and sale which has secured its future as a long-standing and respected member of, and major employer in, the UK travel industry."
The Bird & Bird team was led by Simon Chamberlain, Trystan Tether, Robin Springthorpe and Liz Lang with assistance from Almas Daud, Annabelle Wheeler and Martin Barr, among others. The Monarch in-house legal team was led by Alison Wilds and Andrew Lingard.
The Monarch Group is one of the UK's leading leisure travel groups, comprising principally Monarch Airlines, Monarch Travel Group and Monarch Aircraft Engineering."


I wonder if these (non paying) airlines talk to each other?

Courtesy of Bott and Co, this is the submission from Jet2.com made to the Supreme Court as part of their appeal.

It's the reference to the Dutch case which the Supreme Court subsequently rejected.

If you have been requested to agree to a further stay, pending the Dutch case, I would suggest you do not agree to it and quote the following passage that was rejected by the Supreme Court. Lower Courts will have to follow suit.



Ronald Huzar v jet2.com Limited

Section 7 - REFERENCE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

The present case has features which suggest that a preliminary reference to the CJEU is appropriate. In particular:

- the outcome turns on the interpretation of EU legislation which must necessarily be the same in each Member State

- some language versions of that legislation are inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeal

- regulatory authorities in other Member States continue to stand by the interpretation of the EU regulation which was contained in the CAA’s guidance, now withdrawn, and which is inconsistent with the position taken by the Court of Appeal

- one court has already made a preliminary reference to the CJEU on issues which are similar to those determined by the Court of Appeal (the District Court of Amsterdam in Van Der Lans v KLM, judgement of 29 April 2014), so the CJEU can be expected, in the medium term, to rule on the issues which are before this court.

If, contrary to the appellant’s primary position, the interpretation of article 5(3) is not acte clair, a reference should be made.

Is there a way to find out the reason my flight was delayed? The staff at Alicante airport told us that it was a technical fault with the aircraft(it broke down on runway at LBA) but i would like a better explanation to put in my small claims form.


You are unlikely to get an explanation from them until you put your claim in and then may issue court proceeding before they tell you.