Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Vauban

Yes. Socrates confirmed no appeal to the SC as yet. This would mean this letter is an untruth. Write to the Court stressing that a) CoA refused permission to appeal; b) J2 have made no petition to the SC, and there is no expectation such a oetition wd be accepted; c) in the meantime Huzar is binding law; d) other airlines are now settling cases (eg Virgin).

batman44

Alanmoses wrote: »

I received this today from TCs solicitor. It was after the 28 days the court had instructed them to reply by, and had I not contacted them, I doubt they'd have responded. Any advice on what next from the learned forum members?

1 July 2014

Dear Sirs

Re: A1QZ2340 Gledhill v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited (Lead Claim)
A24YJ391 Wheywell v Thomas Cook
A3QZ0048 Moses v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited

We write further to the above matter and on behalf of the Defendant in each of the three cases, which are now conjoined by virtue of the Orders of District Judge Baldwin dated 3rd June 2014.

In that Order each of these matters were stayed pending the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Huzar v Jet2 2YN76991[2014] EWCA Civ 791. The Defendant in that case, Jet2, have now applied for permission to appeal the claim to the Supreme Court and it is our understanding that the permission is likely to given and the Supreme Court hear the case at some point in late 2014.

Indeed, our experience to date has been that Courts are already granting stays pending the Supreme Court decision in the first instance cases for flight delays that proceed to trial and we are simply trying to avoid wasting Court time and costs of attendance.

Accordingly, we invite the Court to make an Order of its own volition pursuant to CPR 3.1(f) so that these claims are further stayed until 28 days after the Judgment is handed down by the Supreme Court in the Huzar case.

Lastly, in the event these matters reach trial it is our view that:

All the cases can be listed together for one hearing – that way the Court can determine any issues in one sitting rather than separately.
Any trial will, in our experience, need three hours to take into account the evidence that will be heard and discussed. Any listing of less than three hours realistically raises the prospect of the trial being part-heard or adjourned.
We trust this to be satisfactory, but should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the writer.

Yours faithfully

Don't worry about it word for word the same as mine, this is from the C&P dept.

My response.


Following the judgementhanded down in the Royal Courts of Justice on 11/06/2014 Case No B2/2013/3277/CCRTF Jet2.com Limited andMr Ronald Huzar,


The decision by the Court of Appeal to dismiss the Jet2.com appeal on Wednesday 11th June 2014 is binding on all courts in England and Wales. The Court of Appeal refused Jet2.com leave toappeal. The defendants in the Huzar V Jet2.com case have indicated an intention to petition the Supreme Court, this has not as yet been granted or confirmed,if at all, it is unlikely that any decision to grant the appeal is not likely to be known until the end of July at the earlist, before Supreme Court recess.According the Supreme Court applications list the majority cases of this matter are refused on the basis -

Because the applications do not raise a point of law of general public importance which ought to be consideredby the Supreme Court at this time bearing in mind that the cases have already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.



It is our respectful opinion that this should not be sufficient to dissuade the court from applying the test set down by Lord Justice Elias as this is now binding case law on all courts in England and Wales until such time this is changed by a higher court.

The claimant objects to any further requests for stays pending appeal to the Supreme Court.

We believe that this is further attempts by airlines to delay legal claims under regulation EU 261/2004.



The Royal Courts of Justice ruled,

11/06/2014

Case No: B2/2013/3277/CCRTF

Lord Justice Ellias

Lord Justice Laws

Lady Justice Gloster



Para 36



1. As the CJEU recognised in paragraph 24 of Wallentin-Hermann, difficult technical problems arise as a matter of course in theordinary operation of the carrier’s activity. Some may be foreseeable and somenot but all are, in my view, properly described as inherent in the normalexercise of the carrier’s activity. They have their nature and origin in thatactivity; they are part of the wear and tear. In my judgment, the appellant’s submissions fail to give proper effectto the language of the exception. It distortsthe meaning of limb 1 in defining it by reference to limb 2, and therebyrenders it superfluous. It makes an event extraordinary which in common senseterms is perfectly ordinary.

Para 46

2.
In my judgment, the potential consequences of Mr Lawson’s argument alsomilitate against his construction. If he were right, it would open up endlessdebate about whether a particular technical problem should have been foreseenor not. This could become a criticalquestion in many compensation claims and would potentially involve lengthylitigation with, no doubt, expert witnesses being called on each side.Alternatively, simply by raising the defence a carrier would be likely todiscourage inconvenienced passengers from pursuing their claims. I doubtwhether the draftsman would have intended the exception to have that effect.



Information removed

Linda147

Good morning, 1st post on here so please be gentle with me! Flight scheduled 29th June 02.35, at around 22.30 (28th June) we noticed the flight board showing a delay, asked a TC rep who knew nothing, were then told 3 hour delay, couple of hours later I went to look at the board again and bumped into rep, she said they'd put all customers up in a hotel and was shocked we were still there.....long story short got taken to a hotel, put in a flea pit of a room which I complained about was moved to a slightly better room this was around 4am, check out was 12 noon, whereupon we were offered to keep the room at a personal charge, next meeting was at 18.30 where we were informed our flight would leave at 22.30 back to Bristol, it actually left at 23.15, was well over 4 hour flight and was circling nr London for a good while, after we'd landed the Pilot said several things, That firstly we were in Birmingham not Bristol, being they didn't have a landing slot for Bristol (?) Then there was a brake problem so they'd had to go to Birmingham as it was a longer runway, then she was trying to get a takeoff slot so we could fly to Bristol (err so now the runway's long enough?) and finally we needed to disembark to board coaches to return to Bristol where there would be delay letters waiting for us.....we reached Bristol on 30th June 06.02 where there were no letters, just someone from security and a policeman (prewarned we would be slightly miffed?) No TC reps at Birmingham or Bristol to answer our queries.....Was anyone else on here on that flight TCX7336? I would like to think there would be more chance of being heard by TC if we were a collective voice. Our delay from original flight time was over 27 hours, time from resort transfer to home 35 hours, as my husband works away he has lost a weeks work, are we likely to be compensated for loss of earnings?

Caz3121

Linda147 wrote: »

Good morning, 1st post on here so please be gentle with me! Flight scheduled 29th June 02.35, at around 22.30 (28th June) we noticed the flight board showing a delay, asked a TC rep who knew nothing, were then told 3 hour delay, couple of hours later I went to look at the board again and bumped into rep, she said they'd put all customers up in a hotel and was shocked we were still there.....long story short got taken to a hotel, put in a flea pit of a room which I complained about was moved to a slightly better room this was around 4am, check out was 12 noon, whereupon we were offered to keep the room at a personal charge, next meeting was at 18.30 where we were informed our flight would leave at 22.30 back to Bristol, it actually left at 23.15, was well over 4 hour flight and was circling nr London for a good while, after we'd landed the Pilot said several things, That firstly we were in Birmingham not Bristol, being they didn't have a landing slot for Bristol (?) Then there was a brake problem so they'd had to go to Birmingham as it was a longer runway, then she was trying to get a takeoff slot so we could fly to Bristol (err so now the runway's long enough?) and finally we needed to disembark to board coaches to return to Bristol where there would be delay letters waiting for us.....we reached Bristol on 30th June 06.02 where there were no letters, just someone from security and a policeman (prewarned we would be slightly miffed?) No TC reps at Birmingham or Bristol to answer our queries.....Was anyone else on here on that flight TCX7336? I would like to think there would be more chance of being heard by TC if we were a collective voice. Our delay from original flight time was over 27 hours, time from resort transfer to home 35 hours, as my husband works away he has lost a weeks work, are we likely to be compensated for loss of earnings?

You will find the information you need in the FAQs inclusing template letters. EU compensation is a fixed amount based on distance and the airlines are not responsible for any consequential losses. I am confused how a delay of 35 hours to home results in losing a weeks work, you could maybe try and see if your travel insurance would cover this loss but it is unlikely
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4896695

Linda147

Thankyou for your reply....Hubby works away, He missed Monday mornings slot, which is why it's resulted in a loss of a week.

Alanmoses

Cheers Batma44. I've rattled off a similar response to the courts, and cc'd the law firm involved. They missed the 14 day window, and had I not emailed them to ask for information, I doubt they'd have done anything. It's a real mess.

batman44 wrote: »

Don't worry about it word for word the same as mine, this is from the C&P dept.

My response.


Following the judgementhanded down in the Royal Courts of Justice on 11/06/2014 Case No B2/2013/3277/CCRTF Jet2.com Limited andMr Ronald Huzar,


The decision by the Court of Appeal to dismiss the Jet2.com appeal on Wednesday 11th June 2014 is binding on all courts in England and Wales. The Court of Appeal refused Jet2.com leave toappeal. The defendants in the Huzar V Jet2.com case have indicated an intention to petition the Supreme Court, this has not as yet been granted or confirmed,if at all, it is unlikely that any decision to grant the appeal is not likely to be known until the end of July at the earlist, before Supreme Court recess.According the Supreme Court applications list the majority cases of this matter are refused on the basis -

Because the applications do not raise a point of law of general public importance which ought to be consideredby the Supreme Court at this time bearing in mind that the cases have already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.



It is our respectful opinion that this should not be sufficient to dissuade the court from applying the test set down by Lord Justice Elias as this is now binding case law on all courts in England and Wales until such time this is changed by a higher court.

The claimant objects to any further requests for stays pending appeal to the Supreme Court.

We believe that this is further attempts by airlines to delay legal claims under regulation EU 261/2004.



The Royal Courts of Justice ruled,

11/06/2014

Case No: B2/2013/3277/CCRTF

Lord Justice Ellias

Lord Justice Laws

Lady Justice Gloster



Para 36



1. As the CJEU recognised in paragraph 24 of Wallentin-Hermann, difficult technical problems arise as a matter of course in theordinary operation of the carrier’s activity. Some may be foreseeable and somenot but all are, in my view, properly described as inherent in the normalexercise of the carrier’s activity. They have their nature and origin in thatactivity; they are part of the wear and tear. In my judgment, the appellant’s submissions fail to give proper effectto the language of the exception. It distortsthe meaning of limb 1 in defining it by reference to limb 2, and therebyrenders it superfluous. It makes an event extraordinary which in common senseterms is perfectly ordinary.

Para 46

2.
In my judgment, the potential consequences of Mr Lawson’s argument alsomilitate against his construction. If he were right, it would open up endlessdebate about whether a particular technical problem should have been foreseenor not. This could become a criticalquestion in many compensation claims and would potentially involve lengthylitigation with, no doubt, expert witnesses being called on each side.Alternatively, simply by raising the defence a carrier would be likely todiscourage inconvenienced passengers from pursuing their claims. I doubtwhether the draftsman would have intended the exception to have that effect.



Information removed

Mark146

My claim for compensation to Thomas Cook has now been allocated to the Small Claims track at my local court.

I have arrived here via:-
1. Email to Thomas Cook - Rejected claim.
2. Email to CAA. Eventually replied and agreed compensation was due.
3. Letter to Thomas Cook asking for compensation as agreed by CAA. Thomas Cook rejected.
4. Moneyclaim Online application to Thomas Cook for compensation.

I have now agreed Small Claims mediation ahead of a hearing.

My question is. Has anyone else got to this stage and what is their experience? If we cannot agree a compromise, what's next?

I would accept holiday vouchers if offered but I guess they may not even be prepared to do that.

If it does get to court all I am planning on doing is turning up and reading out the CAA statement. Would employing one of those lawyers specialising in FLight Delays really enhance my case at all?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Mark

Vauban

Mark146 wrote: »

If it does get to court all I am planning on doing is turning up and reading out the CAA statement. Would employing one of those lawyers specialising in FLight Delays really enhance my case at all?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Mark

You have to do rather more than that, I'm afraid.

You need to pull together a witness statement and argument, along with supporting documents that comprise the main legal cases and the specific evidence in your case.

The thread "Taking the Airlines to Court" is worth a read, as is the "Court Success Thread".

There's lots in there about what you need to do - but simply reading out the letter from the CAA will only see you likely crash and burn.

batman44

A very nice message to Thomas Cook, thank you for rejecting my claim (not) if you had played ball after your mistake in messing up out names on the flight tickets a couple of years back and we had to pay £100 at the airport. You said we could claim back, when we could not on our return, you upset me so i brought litigation against you for our flight delay some years back. I was going to let it drop, but no you worked me up for refusing me £100 so now this will cost you £576,000 in compensation.
I have been informed I am the first to claim for my flight delay, after this I am going to post every detail of my case on this website for others to claim for this flight, also i am going to create a Facebook page specifically for our flight.

thank you.

JPears

Mark146 wrote: »

My claim for compensation to Thomas Cook has now been allocated to the Small Claims track at my local court.

I have arrived here via:-
1. Email to Thomas Cook - Rejected claim.
2. Email to CAA. Eventually replied and agreed compensation was due.
3. Letter to Thomas Cook asking for compensation as agreed by CAA. Thomas Cook rejected.
4. Moneyclaim Online application to Thomas Cook for compensation.

I have now agreed Small Claims mediation ahead of a hearing.

My question is. Has anyone else got to this stage and what is their experience? If we cannot agree a compromise, what's next?

I would accept holiday vouchers if offered but I guess they may not even be prepared to do that.

If it does get to court all I am planning on doing is turning up and reading out the CAA statement. Would employing one of those lawyers specialising in FLight Delays really enhance my case at all?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Mark

You really need to read the Taking airlines to Court thread.
Mediation? Only accept what your due ie the ful amount, in cash. The reg specifies a set amount, in law. If the airline are willing to negotiate, take that as admitting liability so insist on the full amount.