Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

karl60

davidbrian55 wrote: »

another success! Thanks everyone for the support! There has been some amazing hints and advice over the last week or two and without it I would have struggled.

In my case they dropped extraordinary circs and concentrated on the two year issue.

Thomson are trying to persuade the judges that it's damages, not compensation, and that they are similar and therefore subject to two years and not six. Their bundle is huge, and the judges not neccessarily impressed bearing in mind the time allocated for the hearing. A concise summary works well.

The judge seems to accept that if you've taken the effort to get to court proof of actually being on the flight isn't important, and clearly thomson don't deny that the claimant is on the flight.

Stick with it!

How many of you claimed, and did you all claim or did one person claim for everyone?

bripar

matt2baker wrote: »

Hey, well done!!
Did you get to find out what their EC was? Would be useful to us on this forum to know what the defence was that they felt unstable with.................

They claimed a knock on effect from the ash cloud of 2010 but our flight was actually six weeks after the airspace had reopened.

bripar

happychap7 wrote: »

Hi
Well done. I've sent you a private message because we were on flight 437 from Antalya to Manchester on the 04/06/10 which I assume was the plane you got onto!
Thanks

I have replied to your private message but cant see it anywhere so not sure if you got it. Please let me know and I can send again.

dxc_chappie

davidbrian55 wrote: »

another success! Thanks everyone for the support! There has been some amazing hints and advice over the last week or two and without it I would have struggled.

In my case they dropped extraordinary circs and concentrated on the two year issue.

Thomson are trying to persuade the judges that it's damages, not compensation, and that they are similar and therefore subject to two years and not six. Their bundle is huge, and the judges not neccessarily impressed bearing in mind the time allocated for the hearing. A concise summary works well.

The judge seems to accept that if you've taken the effort to get to court proof of actually being on the flight isn't important, and clearly thomson don't deny that the claimant is on the flight.

Stick with it!

Congratulations -this is great news. I've sent you a pm about this.

bripar

markavo1 wrote: »

My Court date is fast approaching and I am beginning to look at my Court bundle. Can I just clarify with those who have gone before me. Is my witness statement just a statement of the circumstances i.e. on day date and time i was due to board my plane and said plane was delayed for x amount time. I'm just wondering at what bit I present my actual argument and make reference to wallentin etc. Is this just in Court of the day or do I put all my legal arguments into my witness statement? Do I have to exhibit all of the documents I intend to use on the court date in my witness statement?

I was advised by my County Court to include all of the argument including any argument against Thomson's defence. You should refer in your statement to every document which you are relying on and include copies of all documents with the statement when sending it to the court. A copy of everything must also be sent to Thomson.
I was concerned at the time that this would be disclosing to Thomson in advance details of my argument so they could prepare a counter argument. However the Court assured me that Thomson could not produce any document at Court that you have not had sight of previously. Hope this helps.

matt2baker

bripar wrote: »

I was advised by my County Court to include all of the argument including any argument against Thomson's defence. You should refer in your statement to every document which you are relying on and include copies of all documents with the statement when sending it to the court. A copy of everything must also be sent to Thomson.
I was concerned at the time that this would be disclosing to Thomson in advance details of my argument so they could prepare a counter argument. However the Court assured me that Thomson could not produce any document at Court that you have not had sight of previously. Hope this helps.

Thanks for that piece of advice, and reassurance. And was good to know that the ash cloud argument was dismissed too - my claim could fall into that category for their defence, even though it was after the event too!

LULU5779

bripar wrote: »

They claimed a knock on effect from the ash cloud of 2010 but our flight was actually six weeks after the airspace had reopened.

This is great news, I am too facing ash cloud defence even though the air space opened 21st April and our flight 12 may was delayed almost 24 hours due to crew going out of hours they are claiming this was through ash cloud rescue trips. Some more information on the evidence you used would be great.

111KAB

LULU5779 wrote: »

... I am too facing ash cloud defence even though the air space opened 21st April and our flight 12 may was delayed almost 24 hours due to crew going out of hours they are claiming this was through ash cloud rescue trips.

I cannot see any judge accepting this ..... 21 days after the matter was resolved and the airline delaying you 24 hours. If the airlines expect this to be accepted they will be claiming August delays were down to the late snow in April.

matt2baker

111KAB wrote: »

I cannot see any judge accepting this ..... 21 days after the matter was resolved and the airline delaying you 24 hours. If the airlines expect this to be accepted they will be claiming August delays were down to the late snow in April.

Oh please don't give Thomsons any more ideas and excuses!!

davidbrian55

blondmark wrote: »

Well I would be inclined to agree that para 32 of More is the court's reasoning and not its judgment. So let's go straight to the judgment instead:

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that the time-limits for bringing actions for compensation under Articles 5 and 7 of that regulation are determined in accordance with the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions.

Thomson has mischievously adopted the erroneous position that the prescription period under the Montreal Convention should apply, there extinguishing the right to bring proceedings after two years. However, the CJEU did, in fact, rule in the Joan Cuadrench More v KLM case that it is national law, and not the Convention, which will dictate the relevant limitation period. This is consistent with the CJEU’s previous view that Regulation 261 falls entirely outside the scope of the Convention.

please make sure that anyone attending court with thomson quoting 2 years follows this, prints it out and adds it to their bundle for the judge to read. Use in addition the press release clarifying this issue.

Thomson are trying to say that 2 years doesn't apply for damages. Regulation 261 is very clearly compensation and it is essential to have the judge focus on that.:T