Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

jerryo1

This is part of TC defence submitted to Court :-

Further, or in the alternative, and pursuant to the Court of Appeal decision in Graham & Anor v Thomas Cook Group UK Limited (2012) EWCA Civ 1355, it is averred that the Claimant has no private civil cause of action against the Defendant and his claim must be brought before the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), who are the appointed National Enforcement Body (NEB) appointed in respect of the Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance ) Regulations 2005.

and also

In the alternative, it is averred that the Claimants claim ought to be properly referred to the CAA as the appointed NEB for the enforcement of obligations under the Regulation.

Has anybody any ideas on this one? Are TC correct ?

Vauban

Okay. One more time: sweety, it's being appealed, so it's all still in play. There is no definitive law yet

Jerry: this is all bollox, and was dealt with I think by the More judgement.

jerryo1

Thanks for quick response !

What do you make of this one :-

Same aircraft damaged in same area of fuselage by airbridge for the THIRD time in two years equals Extraordinary Circumstance (to quote TC claim)

111KAB

jerryo1 wrote: »

What do you make of this one :-
Same aircraft damaged in same area of fuselage by airbridge for the THIRD time in two years equals Extraordinary Circumstance (to quote TC claim)

Load of rubbish! Suggest the airbridge driver is sacked and TC insist on someone who is competent as this problem is causing them costs in relation to both aircraft damage and the likely valid resultant claims of delayed passengers.

sweety

VAUBAN

Thank you, once again. Can you please amend the MSE Guide's wording to reflect this state of affairs and save people like me from bothering people like you ........

Cheers for the advice.

jerryo1

TC trying to claim the airbridge damage was caused by THIRD PARTY and as such comes under part 19 of the Preliminary list of EC's dated 19/4/13

111KAB

jerryo1 wrote: »

TC trying to claim the airbridge damage was caused by THIRD PARTY and as such comes under part 19 of the Preliminary list of EC's dated 19/4/13

Oh you mean the list that has no legal jurisdiction, the list dreamt up by the airlines and the same list that many judges have rejected. Oh I do wish the EU would hurry up and condemn the list as their Ombudsman has been asked to do this nearly a year ago. There again people could just believe any rubbish the airlines throw at them.

JPears

jerryo1 wrote: »

TC trying to claim the airbridge damage was caused by THIRD PARTY and as such comes under part 19 of the Preliminary list of EC's dated 19/4/13

As Vauban said, it doesn't matter (bollox) - TC are still liable. They have the ability to recover their costs from the third party. Its even in the regulation. Your contract is with TC, their's is with you and the third party.

jerryo1

Question is - Can TC claim that Swissport be treated as Third Party. Surely as agents and representatives of TC at Gatwick, and presumably being paid for their services, they are not Third Party but part of TC ?

111KAB

jerryo1 wrote: »

Question is - Can TC claim that Swissport be treated as Third Party. Surely as agents and representatives of TC at Gatwick, and presumably being paid for their services, they are not Third Party but part of TC ?

Read JPears post before yours .... the clue is in the answer!