Monarch delays & Compensations. Listed flights denied in O.P.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Ceraliam - you have my thoughts from an earlier post. AndyT - the CAA have their list and will not deviate and in any event their decision would not be binding. TLS and NTM - having attended Court last week the Judge explained to me that even in his Court there were 3 Judges that day who could make different decisions. This was a small Court (of 220 in the Country) so I'm afraid ALL of you have to pursue your own claim as there is no point in relying upon 'others'.

Were you up before the beak Kim? Was this a 261/04, or has the long arm of the law finally caught up with you?;)

Mark2spark

Updated the OP.

I also went to read and possibly help on some other threads, but the first question I read was "Do I have to accept the travel vouchers they have offered me?"..... and I quickly concluded I've got better things to do on a Sunday

Magic_Moments

Centipede100 wrote: »

You seem to have ignored the comment I made in the post directly before yours.

I shall restate what I said above:

Extraordinary circumstances are not a black and white area. What might be deemed an extraordinary circumstance on one flight might not be deemed so in another situation. Each case is judged on its own merits.

So even if you learn of a case where the clamant has succeeded in winning compensation in a particular case, it does not necessarily follow that in similar circumstances on a different flight, the same would be true.

If you are hoping for a definitive judgment in the county court which automatically means your claim would follow the same judgment, think again.

That said, if an airline wins a case, it doesn't follow automatically that they would win every similar case either.

There will be no trend as such, each case is heard separately and no connection can or should be made between separate cases in the small claims track.

I appreciate what you say Centipede100 and your input is very helpful and useful. Nevetheless it will be very interesting when the first case siting the "Sturgeon" case for reducing compensation by 50% is heard. That in my opinion will give some guide of what is to come in these specifivc cases.

urban469

If I may interject, Centipede100 and Magic Moments...I think you're both right to an extent.

The key point here is what Centi is trying to say: Small Claims Court rulings don't set precedents (like some other courts do). So none of us can say, ah, in April 2013, Magic Moments vs Monarch Ltd established that a fault in engine number 1 is not an EC, and therefore my claim is valid. Does that make sense?

But Magic Moments has a simpler point, I think. And that is that once these judgements start coming in, we'll be able to understand better how Small Claims judges are interpreting the law. Of course, no two judges are alike, and there may be some weird contradictions and inconsistencies. But the fact is, they know the law a lot better than we do, so we'll start to be able to plot better whether we've got a chance of winning or not.

That said, the majority of Monarch's rejections that I have read on here seem to be very simple cases to win. In other words, the Regulations are clear, and the cases are easy enough to pursue with a little bit of knowledge of the law, and with the help of the amazing people on these forums.

Keep fighting. Monarch is playing a dirty game. Don't doubt your case.

111KAB

urban469 wrote: »

Of course, no two judges are alike, and there may be some weird contradictions and inconsistencies. But the fact is, they know the law a lot better than we do, so we'll start to be able to plot better whether we've got a chance of winning or not.

Urban to some extent I agree with you (no two judges the same) however, from experience, the Judge I came across had read the papers 10 minutes before the hearing and had limited knowledge of EC's and did not know the relevant 'law'.

Mark2spark

111KAB wrote: »

Urban to some extent I agree with you (no two judges the same) however, from experience, the Judge I came across had read the papers 10 minutes before the hearing and had limited knowledge of EC's and did not know the relevant 'law'.

To me that shows the importance of briefly stating in the first few lines that the ECJ Grand Chamber has ruled that Tech issues do not count as EC's unless there is Weather/terrorism/strikes etc...
and then go on to quote the relative Sturgeon and Wallentin pieces with references.
A lot of judges just skim the bundle so getting the main point in (your argument) is imperative.
A nod to the fact that the onus is on the airline to prove the existence of EC's is also a good one to get in.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

To me that shows the importance of briefly stating in the first few lines that the ECJ Grand Chamber has ruled that Tech issues do not count as EC's unless there is Weather/terrorism/strikes etc...
and then go on to quote the relative Sturgeon and Wallentin pieces with references.
A lot of judges just skim the bundle so getting the main point in (your argument) is imperative.
A nod to the fact that the onus is on the airline to prove the existence of EC's is also a good one to get in.

I am definitely not a lawyer, but I think that everyone should be focussing on the point Mark makes. The relevant extracts of the Wallentin and Sturgeon judgements are clear, and I think one needs to frame any legal encounter accordingly, so the airlines are not allowed to take the judge down the wrong rabbit holes. It shouldn't really about whether the fault was discovered early enough, or whether it's a common or rare occurence, or whether the airline had the right resources in place to deal with it.

The principal point, at the heart of any legal action that relates to a delay caused by technical failure is surely that:

"a technical problem in an aircraft ... can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in recital 14 in the preamble to that regulation, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin."

And if it is not extraordinary, the airline has to pay.

charltonfan1

My claim of November 2012 has finally been replied to.

MON5278 01 August 2010 Gatwick to Sharm El Sheikh
Denied on EC's -

"Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a gearbox fluid leak, rendering the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly. Despite our best efforts we were unable to transfer passengers on your flight to an alternative aircraft within our fleet. As a consequence, the flight departed as soon as the aircraft became serviceable."

Think i'm going to get a legal firm to assist my claim

111KAB

charltonfan1 wrote: »

Think i'm going to get a legal firm to assist my claim

Good luck!

urban469

Centipede100 wrote: »

Anyone currently starting or just about to start putting together a witness statement for court would do well to put the points above as the very centrepiece of their statement.

Posts like this are what make this forum so valuable Centipede100, Mark2Spark and Vauban. So thanks.

Mark2Spark, when you say

"the ECJ Grand Chamber has ruled that Tech issues do not count as EC's"

are you referring to the Regulation itself here?

Also, Vauban, when we talk about:

Vauban wrote: »

"a technical problem in an aircraft ... can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in recital 14 in the preamble to that regulation"

Recital 14 (in the preamble to the Regulation) does actually mention "unexpected flight safety shortcomings," as a potential EC, which is exactly the point Monarch will be relying on.