Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

greeneyedlad

laticsforlife wrote: »

OK so you are in Court only 6 days after me, and I got my bundle from Thomson (i.e. their Disclosure) less than 6 days ago.

Have you had this package from them as lodged with the Court (and are you about to lodge your own to the Court)?

That will have much more detail but the problem is you will have submitted your package to the Court already by the time you see what their evidence is (other than it was an EC).

In my case this was the first time I really saw what they say was the reason behind the EC, and to be honest it has more holes than a Swiss cheese!! I fully expect to be able to drive a truck through these holes if it comes to Court (and its looking likely as I only have one more day before the 7 days before date arrives and my £165 Court hearing fee stays payable).

I think I am ready, and have all my evidence for it, only now wondering how much they are going to try and argue Montreal (I'd expected that part to fall by the wayside quite quickly, but now perhaps not - especially as their EC argument is so weak, IMO).

Thanks for your reply.
In Scotland we do not lodge a package or bundle of papers before the first hearing iv been told today by the clerk of the sheriff court.
I just booked the original small claim & sent with it my Particulars of the claim.
Thomson only have to send in whether they intend to defend or not with nothing else.
So I really am going in blind to their defence.
The only time I need to lodge any documents 14 days before, would be if it goes to a further hearing.
Its not good at all here

What is them claiming Montreal??

JPears

greeneyedlad wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.
In Scotland we do not lodge a package or bundle of papers before the first hearing iv been told today by the clerk of the sheriff court.
I just booked the original small claim & sent with it my Particulars of the claim.
Thomson only have to send in whether they intend to defend or not with nothing else.
So I really am going in blind to their defence.
The only time I need to lodge any documents 14 days before, would be if it goes to a further hearing.
Its not good at all here

What is them claiming Montreal??

Really? That sounds complete pants! How can you have a reasoned case without any evidence up front?
Montreal is the specious argument being pushed incorrectly by Thomson over 2 years.

greeneyedlad

JPears wrote: »

Presumably you have submitted your detailed statement including copies of all the relevant case law Wallentin, Sturgeon etc to court and to Thomson's legal team? Today is your last day for doing so if your hearing is on 19th September.

Thanks but as iv just said to Lacticforlife in Scotland we do not lodge a package or bundle of papers before the first hearing.

The only time I need to lodge any documents 14 days before, would be if it goes to a further hearing.

Its not good at all here

laticsforlife

JPears wrote: »

lactics i assume you have seen the good response to 2 yr red herring in post 2888 by darkwarrior? Looks very useful to me. Include it in your skeleton arguement you submit to Thomson's legal team just before hearing. Good luck.

well its actually post #2877 (credit to the right person)

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63036105&postcount=2877

And I printed it straight away, wonderfully worded I thought.

As for skeleton argument; I filed and served my papers on the 21st August (I was going on holiday so had to do it early, and even funnier, it was with Thomson and we had no delays!!); I only got my Disclosure from them last Sat 31st so could not include anything in my bundle to respond to their new BS (not much new actually but more detail to be shot down a week on Friday).

Funny my mobile phone rang earlier but only rang twice before either my phione lost signal or they gave up and it was a number unknown (I now wonder if Thomson are trying to get hold of me to settle - wishful thinking, save me a day off work?)


Apologies if I misunderstand - is there something I hand to Thomson on the day (a skeleton argument in response to their full Disclosure and witness statements)?

dxc_chappie

greeneyedlad wrote: »

What is them claiming Montreal??

Read through the thread "Thomson Claim 2 year limit to claim" - Mark2spark has provided an analysis of Thomson's reasoning why they think the 2 yr limit should apply.

greeneyedlad

JPears wrote: »

Really? That sounds complete pants! How can you have a reasoned case without any evidence up front?
Montreal is the specious argument being pushed incorrectly by Thomson over 2 years.

It does sound pants but unfortunately true. That's the Scottish Small Claims procedure;

"At the hearing both of you should have the opportunity to discuss the claim with the sheriff, and the claim may be settled at this hearing. The procedure is designed to encourage settlement at this stage but in some busy courts sheriffs do not have enough time to do this if there is any dispute. In those cases the sheriff usually sets a proof hearing."

"What to do at a proof hearing At a proof hearing the court will usually require to hear evidence from witnesses. It is important to prepare the case carefully. The following points are a general guide to what preparation should be made. If you are not confident you should consider taking someone else along to help, and/or getting specialist advice first. The main points are:

• all letters and any other documents about the case should be lodged in court no later than 14 days before the proof hearing and you have to send a list of what you have lodged to the trader"

So I have no idea what Thomson are going to claim the "Technical Defect" was on the previous flight as they "are not obliged to give me any further information", until I actually get into court!

Vauban

greeneyedlad wrote: »

Thanks but as iv just said to Lacticforlife in Scotland we do not lodge a package or bundle of papers before the first hearing.

The only time I need to lodge any documents 14 days before, would be if it goes to a further hearing.

Its not good at all here

From my initial reading, it seems that the Scottish small claims system has a preliminary hearing built into it, at which claimants and defendants bring their bundle of documents along. If there is a dispute about facts or other issues, it goes to a second (main) hearing. There's a useful link explaining the process here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/guidance-notes/small-claim-guidance-notes

On the production of bundles, the guidance notes that:

Any party to the case may ask the court to consider documents or other items which they think might be helpful. Such documents or items are called ‘productions’.

There are certain rules about productions which have to be complied with. Some of the most important are:

• You must take any productions you intend to rely on to the sheriff clerk’s office no later than 14 days before the hearing. In this context that means a hearing at which evidence is to be led, and not the hearing on the date fixed in the summons when the case is first raised. Once you have taken productions to the sheriff clerk’s office, they are then said to have been ‘lodged’.

Interesting.

EDIT: I see Greeneyedlad just beat me to it!!

greeneyedlad

Vauban wrote: »

From my initial reading, it seems that the Scottish small claims system has a preliminary hearing built into it, at which claimants and defendants bring their bundle of documents along. If there is a dispute about facts or other issues, it goes to a second (main) hearing. There's a useful link explaining the process here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/guidance-notes/small-claim-guidance-notes

On the production of bundles, the guidance notes that:



Interesting.

EDIT: I see Greeneyedlad just beat me to it!!

HeHe Indeed Vauban
I dont like this system at all,id rather have your English 1 I think:rotfl:

In saying that, I still dont know what to put in my "bundle of documents" when I do go to court other than what iv already stated the facts in my original Particulars of the Claim

bettys73

Apologies if I have missed this on an earlier thread but .... Is there a date set for the Cambridge hearing whereby Thomsons are appealing the 2 year/6year rule? Our delay was 28 January 2010 & I am in the middle of preparing my LBA - their argument in our case is EC due to a knock on effect from a previous (unconnected) flight - a defence which is unlikely to succeed due to the 'particular aircraft on a particular day' ruling in Finnair v Lassooy.

I thought I'd wait until the Cambridge hearing verdict as, in the unlikely event of Thomson winning the case, it would render our claim invalid on time. If they lose then they can't cite the two year rule as an additional excuse, as they seem to be doing on a regular basis.

Vauban

bettys73 wrote: »

Apologies if I have missed this on an earlier thread but .... Is there a date set for the Cambridge hearing whereby Thomsons are appealing the 2 year rule? Our delay was 28 January 2010 & I am in the middle of preparing my LBA - their argument in our case is EC due to a knock on effect from a previous (unconnected) flight - a defence which is unlikely to succeed due to the 'particular aircraft on a particular day' ruling in Finnair v Lassooy.

I thought I'd wait until the Cambridge hearing verdict as, in the unlikely event of Thomson winning the case, it would render our claim invalid on time. If they lose then they can't cite the two year rule as an additional excuse, as they seem to be doing on a regular basis.

Betty: they lost the hearing which was at Cambridge County Court, but have - as I understand it - been given leave to appeal to a higher court. Coby Benson posted on this recently - but I don't think that's likely to happen (if indeed ever) until 2014. In the meantime, Thomson are starting to argue that claims over 2 years should be stayed.

Thomson's tactics strike cynical old Vauban as simply a tendentious excuse to prevaricate in the hope that it deters claimants further. So my advice is to continue with your claim.