Help required, Bmi Re scheduled flight compensation claim

Shona99

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Bearing in mind that you be using an EC regulation as the basis of the claim, this may very well apply - from http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/small_claims.htm.

I wouldn't expect a small claims court to be able to make a judgement on the wording of EC regulations where the wording isn't clear. I expect BMI could attempt to get it moved onto a different 'track' - and thus the liability for costs starts to come in. Can the OP, having just paid for a wedding and honeymoon really afford to see a civil case through the legal system?

As it's based on an interpretation of EC regulations with no precedent, I wouldn't be so certain that BMI would lose such a case. You might even see other airlines collaborating as expert witnesses to ensure that the ruling went the airline industry's way - basically, with such an uncertain thing, it would be very foolish for the OP to assume that a win would be certain.

Certainly, you haven't proved in this thread that it would be a straightforward case in the original poster's favour.

Costs awards are always at the ultimate discretion of the judge-even on the small claims track.
Likewise the Judge -at the time of allocation of the claim to the appropriate track-has discretion as to which track to place the case.

The parties can in their allocation questionnaire present their view as to whether the claim should be moved to another track. The Judge could even do this on his own motion.

Just because he/she can move the case does not mean he/she will move it.

Many cases involving novel aspects of the application of EC 261/2004 have been retained within the small claims track to hearing. (Often where the passenger has been successful at ultimate hearing.)

Can you give any contrary prior examples where a Judge has taken such action that would lead you to your belief that a Judge would exercise that discretion on this occasion to place the case on another track?

You point yourself to the inherent justice of that might be a comparatively small value claim having adverse costs consequences. I would expect a judge to take that into account-as previous judges have taken this into acount in prior situations.

However there is no guarantee of anything in litigation as any professional practioner of litigation will doubtless tell you. That doesnt stop a great deal of litigation taking place. The comparative risks of litigation can be assessed and that is what professional legal advisors do to provide overall advice to their clients

I also don't presume to know the financial situation of the OP.

You also see "other airlines collaborating as "expert witnesses".
On what basis could they be called as expert witnesses?

(Could such "collaboration" also fall foul of legislation dealing with anti-competitive behaviour?)

This may not be a straightforward case by any means-hence the need to obtain competent and qualified advice-both on substantive and procedural law matters

(Just one final point and before dmg24 jumps in in with a spelling correction. (I'm surprised he/she hasnt already given his/her interest in legal and financial matters-as well as spelling).
Note your spelling of "judgement". The correct spelling of this word in the appropriate cases is usually drummed into students at a very early stage of a formal study of law).

Airlines have many competent and highly qualified lawyers either employed by them or on retainer to protect their perceived best interests. Airlines don't really need more assistance in this respect. They also have deep pockets as you mention.

Individual passengers on the other hand don't such have such ready access to competent, specialised, legal advice and assistance. Passengers need to search this out and figure out how to pay for that advice and assistance.

The OP has attempted to do this. The OP hasnt received much encouragement or support in this effort-other than dzug's helpful commentary and clarification.

Of course if the OP perceived the forum as objectively partsan in favour of the airline's interests rather than his/her own interests then why would the OP feel any desire or interest to return to the forum?

hollydays

So could you tell the OP what is reasonable yet? You have gone strangely quiet on this subject.

dzug1

hollydays wrote: »

So could you tell the OP what is reasonable yet? You have gone strangely quiet on this subject.

Shona never does that, just says or hints other posters don't know what they are talking about.

dmg24

hollydays wrote: »

So could you tell the OP what is reasonable yet? You have gone strangely quiet on this subject.

In ten words or less?

BTW Shona99, the spellings judgement and judgment are equally acceptable in legal circles (I have even double checked that for you in my legal dictionary!). Nonetheless, expertese is a word that does not exist in any dictionary!