Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

JPears · 24 January 2015 at 1:12AM

Bumped to the top for noobs

dartilov · 27 January 2015 at 8:50PM

Had the following response today from RA. A holding letter (another tactic I am sure).
Bearing this in mind, I also contacted our local court and they advised that any ESCP claim needs to go through MMCMM at Salford.

[FONT=&quot]In relation to your claim for monetary compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004; a number of airlines including Ryanair have applied to for a further stay in all cases concerning aircraft technical defects, pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Van Der Lans v KLM (C-257/14). In this European case the CJEU have been asked to give clarity on the meaning of “unexpected flight safety shortcomings” in relation to delays and cancellations caused by aircraft technical problems.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We await a formal hearing date for our stay application from Liverpool County Court, it being the specialist Court in England and Wales which deals with such matters. In the event that the Court grants our request for a stay, we must then await the judgment of the CJEU in Van der Lans v KLM before any decision on the payment of monetary compensation under Article 7 Regulation EU261/2004 can be made.[/FONT]

Am I now needing to wait or press ahead with legal action? Also if they are using a UK court, can I not use MCOL?

Thanks in advance.

Dr_Watson · 27 January 2015 at 9:53PM

dartilov wrote: »

Had the following response today from RA. A holding letter (another tactic I am sure).
Bearing this in mind, I also contacted our local court and they advised that any ESCP claim needs to go through MMCMM at Salford.

[FONT=&quot]In relation to your claim for monetary compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004; a number of airlines including Ryanair have applied to for a further stay in all cases concerning aircraft technical defects, pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Van Der Lans v KLM (C-257/14). In this European case the CJEU have been asked to give clarity on the meaning of “unexpected flight safety shortcomings” in relation to delays and cancellations caused by aircraft technical problems.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We await a formal hearing date for our stay application from Liverpool County Court, it being the specialist Court in England and Wales which deals with such matters. In the event that the Court grants our request for a stay, we must then await the judgment of the CJEU in Van der Lans v KLM before any decision on the payment of monetary compensation under Article 7 Regulation EU261/2004 can be made.[/FONT]

Am I now needing to wait or press ahead with legal action? Also if they are using a UK court, can I not use MCOL?

Thanks in advance.

dartilov,
You are right, the letter you have from RA is purely to put you off.

Your local court (do please tell me who, so, when I get around to doing my homework -I can name and shame them) are very wrong.
ESCP claims do not have to go through Salford.
Try one of the major courts as detailed in my post 569, if no joy then send it to the combined court centre in Sheffield. Read a few of my posts on here about this.
You cannot use MCOL so forget this.

The KLM V VDL case is a pathetic attempt by some of the airlines to further delay cases of this nature and further dissuade litigants in person (as you will be soon).
Again, read around this forum and you'll soon get the gist of this.

So onward with your claim using the ESCP...
Good luck and keep going.

dartilov · 27 January 2015 at 10:48PM

Your local court (do please tell me who, so, when I get around to doing my homework -I can name and shame them) are very wrong.

It was Birkenhead, so I may opt for Chester or Liverpool will contact them tomorrow.

NoviceAngel · 27 January 2015 at 11:29PM

dartilov wrote: »

It was Birkenhead, so I may opt for Chester or Liverpool will contact them tomorrow.

I know NOTHING about ESCP claims, but I do know that Liverpool have a highly regarded experienced set of Judges that deal with flight delay claims, hence the Jet2 Van der Lans test case in a few weeks, I'd go for Liverpool

Fletchasketch · 28 January 2015 at 1:43PM

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Fletchasketch,
Any claim that was stayed due the two year limitation cause should now not be in this position. The Dawson ruling at the end of last year quashed this, litigants should have written to their court asking for any such stays to be lifted quoting this ruling.
If any of these cases have been 'further stayed' due to the KLM case when only the two year argument was been argued by RA then this should not be applicable. (Not that the KLM case is going to go Jet2/ RA's way anyway IMO). Again litigants should contact their court if this is the case- as like you say the two arguments are different.
But of course RA might now be claiming 'extraordinary circumstances' in these cases, if so any such defence should be presented to litigants so they can argue against this using relevant case law:- Huzar and of course Wallentin to counter this.
Where the KLM case is quoted by RA requesting a further stay- a copy of the Vergara case and the ruling made in the Scottish (albeit lower court) should be thrown in for good measure until these charlatans (RA) get their dues in Liverpool next month.
Rant over for now...

A bit of further info regarding cases over 2 years old. It seems that these are also on hold, although I've never heard about any Manchester based case so am wondering if anyone can shed any light on the response I received from Bott and Co below:

Good Morning,

Thank you for your email. I have discussed your case in depth with my Line Manager. The only response we have received from Ryanair is that in accordance with their terms and conditions you only have 2 years in which to make a claim. As they have not advised the specific reason for the delay we cannot be sure whether this is affected by Van der Lans v KLM, although it is quite possible. However, as it is definitely affected by the 2 years argument we have an appeal concerning this very issue against Ryanair at Manchester County Court and are currently waiting for the court to list this for a hearing. Therefore we will await the outcome of this before issuing court proceedings on your claim.

Kind Regards

Vauban · 28 January 2015 at 2:04PM

Fletchasketch wrote: »

A bit of further info regarding cases over 2 years old. It seems that these are also on hold, although I've never heard about any Manchester based case so am wondering if anyone can shed any light on the response I received from Bott and Co below:

My understanding is that there have been a number of court cases testing the point about "2 years in the T&Cs". Some have been won, and some have been lost. I understand, and your email supports this, that Bott are appealing one of the cases that was lost. This is likely to rise through the court hierarchy - in the way that Dawson and Huzar did. So until there is a precedent setting rule,other cases involving the 2YT&C point are likely to be stayed.

Dr_Watson · 28 January 2015 at 2:17PM

Vauban wrote: »

My understanding is that there have been a number of court cases testing the point about "2 years in the T&Cs". Some have been won, and some have been lost. I understand, and your email supports this, that Bott are appealing one of the cases that was lost. This is likely to rise through the court hierarchy - in the way that Dawson and Huzar did. So until there is a precedent setting rule,other cases involving the 2YT&C point are likely to be stayed.

Fletchasketch,
Many thanks to our Lord Prof...
And there you go, that tidies up the difference between 2 years T's and C's and the two year limitation period as quashed by the Dawson case.
Hope that makes sense.

NoviceAngel · 28 January 2015 at 2:29PM

Fletchasketch wrote: »

However, as it is definitely affected by the 2 years argument we have an appeal concerning this very issue against Ryanair at Manchester County Court and are currently waiting for the court to list this for a hearing. Therefore we will await the outcome of this before issuing court proceedings on your claim.

Vauban wrote: »

My understanding is that there have been a number of court cases testing the point about "2 years in the T&Cs". Some have been won, and some have been lost. I understand, and your email supports this, that Bott are appealing one of the cases that was lost. This is likely to rise through the court hierarchy - in the way that Dawson and Huzar did. So until there is a precedent setting rule,other cases involving the 2YT&C point are likely to be stayed.

Yes this is going to take months, if not years for possibly the SC to get involved again, I'd say if Bott win, as they should with the County Court appeal, then Jet2 will almost certainly take it to the High Court, they will simply rather delay and spend hundreds of thousands on legal costs than pay legitimate claims.

If this does go all the way to the SC, they are sure to get short shift treatment from the SC Judges....

chrisjeffries · 29 January 2015 at 12:54PM

chrisjeffries wrote: »

Thanks Dr Watson.

We had been following the guide until now, and thought it strange that you hadn't mentioned the N510 Form.

Think its best if we try a different court. Will give the Combined Sheffield Court Centre a go then!

Chris

Hi Dr Watson,

We are in need of your advice again!

We submitted out ESCP claim to Sheffield, and, as expected, Ryanair are denying they owe us anything (Ignoring our ruling from the CAA and quoting unrelated cases).

However the court has set a date for an Oral hearing, even though we requested a written one. On speaking to the court, they say they haven't done many ESCP claims and have never hear of a written hearing!

Did you come across this?

Thanks,

Chris

Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free