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

legal_magpie

JPears wrote: »

However they can apply for setaside, to allow submission of a defence, and possibly a hearing. They have to show good reason for not adhering to dates. But most judges are quite lenient as they would rather have a hearing/due legal process than judgement by default.

Applications to SJA are subject to the "Denton" test as well as to the rules that govern such applications. Thus, the airline will have to show
(a) An explanation why they allowed judgement to be entered in the first place
(b) That the application was made promptly
(c) That they have a realistic, not merely fanciful, prospect of success. This means that they will have to put all their cards in the table at that stage. Simply to allege that there was an EC isn't enough
(d) Under Denton, the Court can look at other circumstances. E.G. whether the airline dealt with correspondence properly.

So most Judges certainly aren't "quite lenient" provided the application is properly contested.

JPears

Whilst that may be true, I think many veterans here know that airlines have frequently ignored court deadlines and overturned default judgements

silversue_2

Monarch have filed their defence. They are relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Huzar (Jet2.com Limited v Ronald Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791) namely at Para 48.......

They also say that as the flight delay was caused by adverse weather this is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraordinary and clearly external to the defendant.

They claim they satisfy the test of using all reasonable measures to avoid the delay as set out in Wallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin -Hermann v Alitalia). They claim they are a smaller airline and had only 30 aircraft within their fleet at the time and therefore did not have spare idle aircraft to cover any disruption to the programme.

They claim to have taken all reasonable measures within their power to avoid and at best minimise the delay.

Further they rely upon the decision of Eglitis v Latvijas Republikas ministrija at para 35 where the CJEU held that 'the regulation cannot result in airlines being led to make intolerable sacrifices'.

In addition, they rely on the Guidance on extraordinary circumstances from the National Enforcement Bodies across Europe published by the EC.

They also ask for strict proof that we were actually on the flight!!

Any comments or advice would be very much appreciated

Tyzap

silversue wrote: »

Monarch have filed their defence. They are relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Huzar (Jet2.com Limited v Ronald Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791) namely at Para 48.......

They also say that as the flight delay was caused by adverse weather this is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraordinary and clearly external to the defendant.

They claim they satisfy the test of using all reasonable measures to avoid the delay as set out in Wallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin -Hermann v Alitalia). They claim they are a smaller airline and had only 30 aircraft within their fleet at the time and therefore did not have spare idle aircraft to cover any disruption to the programme.

They claim to have taken all reasonable measures within their power to avoid and at best minimise the delay.

Further they rely upon the decision of Eglitis v Latvijas Republikas ministrija at para 35 where the CJEU held that 'the regulation cannot result in airlines being led to make intolerable sacrifices'.

In addition, they rely on the Guidance on extraordinary circumstances from the National Enforcement Bodies across Europe published by the EC.

They also ask for strict proof that we were actually on the flight!!

Any comments or advice would be very much appreciated

Hi silversue,

The argument that Monarch are forwarding is all to do with what constitutes as an Extraordinary Circumstance.

However, this is all pointless as it refers to the flight prior to yours and not your specific flight, which was a knock on due to poor weather conditions at Gibraltar.

Whether the previous flight was or was not an EC is irrelevant imo.

If that is their best argument I'll put my money on you.

Good luck.

111KAB

silversue wrote: »

They claim they are a smaller airline and had only 30 aircraft within their fleet at the time and therefore did not have spare idle aircraft to cover any disruption to the programme.

In addition, they rely on the Guidance on extraordinary circumstances from the National Enforcement Bodies across Europe published by the EC.

Agree totally with Tyzap however what has the size of an airline got to do with meeting their obligations .... are they suggesting it would be in our interests to fly easyJet or Ryanair as they have larger fleets? The Monarch fleet size 'problem' is their problem it should not be yours.


The extraordinary circumstances bunkum issued by the NEB and published by the EU is, as I say, bunkum as proven in court.


Typical lawyer response from Monarch which is a total load of rubbish, they know it and regulars on these pages know it. They are a discredit to the legal profession and should be ashamed of themselves for putting their signature to this defence.

Justice13075

Synonyms for the word Bunkum

balderdash
blather
claptrap
drivel
garbage
idiocy
nonsense
piffle
poppycock
rigmarole
rubbish
tomfoolery
trash
twaddle
tommyrot
applesauce
baloney
bilge
bull
bunk
crap
hooey
malarkey

Just about sums Monarch up perfectly

silversue_2

wow, many, many thanks Tyzap, 111KAB, that is really helpful to me ..... and Justice13075 - loved it (especially applesauce)!

JPears

Justice13075 wrote: »

Synonyms for the word Bunkum

balderdash
blather
claptrap
drivel
garbage
idiocy
nonsense
piffle
poppycock
rigmarole
rubbish
tomfoolery
trash
twaddle
tommyrot
applesauce
baloney
bilge
bull
bunk
crap
hooey
malarkey

Just about sums Monarch up perfectly

As Paul Calf (Steve Coogan character) would say - "bag of s?/te"

Vauban

silversue wrote: »

Monarch have filed their defence. They are relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Huzar (Jet2.com Limited v Ronald Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791) namely at Para 48.......

They also say that as the flight delay was caused by adverse weather this is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraordinary and clearly external to the defendant.

They claim they satisfy the test of using all reasonable measures to avoid the delay as set out in Wallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin -Hermann v Alitalia). They claim they are a smaller airline and had only 30 aircraft within their fleet at the time and therefore did not have spare idle aircraft to cover any disruption to the programme.

They claim to have taken all reasonable measures within their power to avoid and at best minimise the delay.

Further they rely upon the decision of Eglitis v Latvijas Republikas ministrija at para 35 where the CJEU held that 'the regulation cannot result in airlines being led to make intolerable sacrifices'.

In addition, they rely on the Guidance on extraordinary circumstances from the National Enforcement Bodies across Europe published by the EC.

They also ask for strict proof that we were actually on the flight!!

Any comments or advice would be very much appreciated

This seems largely identical to the defence they offered in my case - which I won in court three years ago. Not very imaginative, are they?

silversue_2

Thanks Vauban. They have asked for the Court to be in Bedford so they can bring 'experts'. Also have agreed to mediation.