Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

laticsforlife wrote: »

As a CC sets no precedent, but they have appealed, how does that affect other cases upcoming, as the original Dawson decision is not precedent but the appeal will be. Do they refer to it in each and every court and simply ask for a stay (of execution)?

Do we then go onto argue EC's and get that part clear in case the appeal is unsucessful (as of course we all expect it will be)?

I believe that the airline argues for a stay of the whole action - there would be little point in deliberating on ECs if the claim was invalid due to being out of time.

I assume that it will be relatively easy for the airlines to get a stay - the bar doesn't seem to be set very high. The inclination of most judges will be to see how this plays out in a higher court, presumably.

LULU5779

ok, dropping off my evidence today as court hearing is on the 25th sept. Just wanted to check i have all the cases i need.

22 hours delay due to staff out of hours, they are claiming EC following ash cloud rescue missions even though this was the 12th/13th may some time after the airspace reopening on the 20th april.

i am using

More- for 2 year
Finnair timy Lassooy
wallentin
sturgeon
eglilis & ratnieks

anything i have missed?

they are using Denise Mcdonagh V Ryanair detailed in their original defence although i havent received their edvidence yet.

thanks in advance

ruthiec1972

Thomson insist our "techincal fault" or to you and me broken toilet was discovered inflight but it wasn't because the pilot told us about it before we even took off. How can we prove they are lying. Also it appears the advise is avoid the CAA and go straight to small claims court - would this be right.

Thanks

Vauban

ruthiec1972 wrote: »

Thomson insist our "techincal fault" or to you and me broken toilet was discovered inflight but it wasn't because the pilot told us about it before we even took off. How can we prove they are lying. Also it appears the advise is avoid the CAA and go straight to small claims court - would this be right.

Thanks

I agree go straight to court, given the CAA's uselessness.

In your witness statement, you should note what you were told by the pilot. You should also request an "event print out" of the incident: effectively an engineer's log of exactly when the fault was reported and when they responded. The airline will have to produce this in court - and if they've made a mistake they are likely to want to settle before it goes before a judge.

Vauban

LULU5779 wrote: »

ok, dropping off my evidence today as court hearing is on the 25th sept. Just wanted to check i have all the cases i need.

22 hours delay due to staff out of hours, they are claiming EC following ash cloud rescue missions even though this was the 12th/13th may some time after the airspace reopening on the 20th april.

i am using

More- for 2 year
Finnair timy Lassooy
wallentin
sturgeon
eglilis & ratnieks

anything i have missed?

they are using Denise Mcdonagh V Ryanair detailed in their original defence although i havent received their edvidence yet.

thanks in advance

Looks right to me - you might want to add the Nelson/Tui case from October of last year (which basically confirmed Sturgeon, but it was a Grand Chamber decision).

Good luck - you shouldn't need it!

laticsforlife

Vauban wrote: »

I believe that the airline argues for a stay of the whole action - there would be little point in deliberating on ECs if the claim was invalid due to being out of time.

I assume that it will be relatively easy for the airlines to get a stay - the bar doesn't seem to be set very high. The inclination of most judges will be to see how this plays out in a higher court, presumably.

So bearing in mind I've had nothing from T since we both submitted our bundles, am I right in thinking that I will essentially waste a full day off work when all that will happen is I turn up at 10am and they will apply to stay the whole case until 2014, and thats the end of it?:mad:

If thats right its a bit of an anti-climax, and I wonder how I can then add my loss of a days (or two) salary to the claim, when all I actually lose is a days leave.:(

Vauban

laticsforlife wrote: »

So bearing in mind I've had nothing from T since we both submitted our bundles, am I right in thinking that I will essentially waste a full day off work when all that will happen is I turn up at 10am and they will apply to stay the whole case until 2014, and thats the end of it?:mad:

If thats right its a bit of an anti-climax, and I wonder how I can then add my loss of a days (or two) salary to the claim, when all I actually lose is a days leave.:(

In the event of you winning, I believe you can claim up to £90 for an appearance. If you need to appear twice, you can be paid twice. This happened to 111KAB, I believe.

bazaar_2

ruthiec1972 wrote: »

Thomson insist our "techincal fault" or to you and me broken toilet was discovered inflight but it wasn't because the pilot told us about it before we even took off. How can we prove they are lying. Also it appears the advise is avoid the CAA and go straight to small claims court - would this be right.

Thanks

as long as your claim is not allocated to a track, then file a CPR 18 with them, requesting all the evidence. Ill put a draft up sometime soon, but use this and make sure you insist on a statement of truth from the airline,

MGOR

I've commenced proceedings. Thomson have indicated they are going to defend and had until last week to issue a defence. I'm assuming they've defended late and its probably in the system waiting to be sent to me (didn't use MCOL as multiple claimants) Might be lucky and I get a default judgement if nothing appears!

Thinking ahead re a CPR18 request (can be used in small claims?) I'm in 2 minds whether to bother. The reason for the delay was due to the failure of both pilots headsets discovered just prior to the flight. There where 4 other thomson planes on the ground at the time so reason why they couldn't borrow 1 - they carry a spare apparently.

I could put in a request to cover maintenance of part expected life number of similar occurences etc but think this may cloud the issue and we get bogged down in engineering jargon which I am not qualified to counter. Wouldn't it be better to rely on walletin etc and keep matter simple?

Thoughts anyone especially from the more learned and respected of the contributors (you know who you are and your inputs to date on this forum have been of much assistance to me to date- thanks)

JPears

MGOR wrote: »

I've commenced proceedings. Thomson have indicated they are going to defend and had until last week to issue a defence. I'm assuming they've defended late and its probably in the system waiting to be sent to me (didn't use MCOL as multiple claimants) Might be lucky and I get a default judgement if nothing appears!

Thinking ahead re a CPR18 request (can be used in small claims?) I'm in 2 minds whether to bother. The reason for the delay was due to the failure of both pilots headsets discovered just prior to the flight. There where 4 other thomson planes on the ground at the time so reason why they couldn't borrow 1 - they carry a spare apparently.

I could put in a request to cover maintenance of part expected life number of similar occurences etc but think this may cloud the issue and we get bogged down in engineering jargon which I am not qualified to counter. Wouldn't it be better to rely on walletin etc and keep matter simple?

Thoughts anyone especially from the more learned and respected of the contributors (you know who you are and your inputs to date on this forum have been of much assistance to me to date- thanks)

Ask for a complete tiemtable/schedule/rostering of the other aircraft (and crew) in fleet for the 36 hours each side of the delay. Request now or in CPR18.
remeber there are 2 tests to be met - EC & all reasonable measures to prevent/reduce delay.