Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

happychap7

Centipede100 wrote: »

From a recent court hearing involving Thomson, it appears their tactics are to request a stay of all claims greater than two years until the appeal has been heard next year and that, if cases are not stayed, their solicitor said their intention was to appeal all others on the basis of the 2 year time limit in each case.

It wouldn't surprise me if other airlines took/were thinking of taking a similar approach.

What I really don't understand is why Thomson have settled with some people out of court who didn't put their claim in within 2 years. If they were that confident about their 2 year rule then they wouldn't have paid them out. I bet they don't mention that at the appeal court !

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

happychap7 wrote: »

What I really don't understand is why Thomson have settled with some people out of court who didn't put their claim in within 2 years. If they were that confident about their 2 year rule then they wouldn't have paid them out. I bet they don't mention that at the appeal court !

I am sure I saw an older claim lost by Thomson on the success thread only the other day? Are they appealing that?

Vauban

A quick warning to those who wish to sit on the fence, pending the resolution of any appeal. Be careful you don't go out of time! Unless you start court action (and have it stayed) the clock is still ticking. Anyone whose flight was before 2009 is well advised to lodge their claim with the court (writing to the airline doesn't count).

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I expect if they lose the appeal they will simply peddle extraordinary circumstances.

Mark2spark

laticsforlife wrote: »

How does one address a District Judge, sir/madam or Your Honour?

A female judge would usually be Ma'am. (Depending on your accent, that'll be 'Marm')

Bonters

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Centipede could other airlines on the back of Thomsons appeal have older claims stayed until the appeal even though they are not appealing themselves?

If that is the case then Thomson stepping out of the box is doing them all a great favour with free to them legal proceedings.

As a guess how much do you think it is costing Thonson to appeal the recent judgement?

I'm not certain, but I imagine if the other airline has claimed the 2 year limitation in their notice of defence, then yes they could. Otherwise I wouldn't have thought so. But if they've got any cunning at all, they will all now start including that in their defence claims, certainly until the outcome of the Thomson appeal. I imagine the appeal process is costly, but there are no extremely complex issues to consider, and the judgement which is being appealed is comprehensive anyway. It's basically a case of Thomson going 'All In' with their poker hand

SEW56

Just to let you all know I have now taken Thomson to the small claims court. In my case, to date, they have simply invoked the 2 year defense and have not argued about the technical problems as a reason for rejecting my claim. I await to see their defense to the court, papers have been served.

Having read all of this thread my greatest satisfaction, win or lose, will be the thorn in the side we are being to the airline. In fact, if Thomson had replied originally with a full explanation and apology I might not even be here now. Will this and indeed other airlines ever learn that if they are honest, timely and responsive to travelers they are more likely to gain our support and we are less likely to ask for compensation. The sooner they do this they can downsize their complaints and legal departments and put the money saved into ensuring a better service!

laticsforlife

Just a quick note to say that today I won in court.

I will post a full note later, as I'm on my phone.

dxc_chappie

SEW56 wrote: »

In my case, to date, they have simply invoked the 2 year defense and have not argued about the technical problems as a reason for rejecting my claim. I await to see their defense to the court, papers have been served.

I'm not a betting man but I would wager their defence will include "in the alternative .... unforeseeable technical fault ....extraordinary circumstances .... rely on Nelson para 39".

laticsforlife

Here is my full explanation of today's events in Tamside County Court.

Three strands to the case;

1. Was I on the flight
2. Is the case out of time (2 years not 6)
3. Are EC's evident

Plus a minor point about the strictness of me being the only claimant. The barrister (a Mr Thompson!) mentioned it but did not suggest the claim was wrong, and the judge was clear that it was I who entered into the contract and so could make the joint claim.

Mr T also conceded that I was on the flight and wouldn't be arguing that.

He also (very surprisingly) then said they wouldn't be arguing Montreal and were only arguing EC's, so the whole issue of the Dawson case and appeal never came up. I must admit it threw me a bit.

Finally we got onto the argument over EC's.

Mr T suggested that Finnair actually says that you look at the causal link between the EC and the delay, and if (in my case) the lightning could be shown to be the root cause of the delay the it did not matter that it was a subsequent flight.

I must say that the judge seemed quite taken with this and went to some lengths in asking me about the lightning strike and whether I accepted that it had happened to flight ZA.

The judge had NOT read all the other cases beforehand, and also was not that impressed with preamble 15 of the EC261 as it talked about follow on flights overnight etc.

He also questioned whether he was bound by cases like Wallentin and Finnair (I couldn't answer that point!)

Where I was able to succeed was to show that Thomsons evidence was not clear that the particular aircraft that got struck by lightning, was actually going to be our plane, and Mr T said he could add nothing more than what T had provided him.

I basically was able to cast enough doubt over the timeline being suggested, and so the judge said he wasn't satisfied that they had shown that there was a causal link between the lightning strike and our flight, and so we won!

4x € 400 plus costs.

The judge did refuse the 8% interest claim and instead allowed me 1.5%.

He also did not allow me anything for loss of income saying it should have been on my claim form (I've only just thought that my argument could have been that at that point I did not know it would end up in court) but hey ho, the main point is the win.

In summary, I think that if Thomson had not muddied the waters with their own evidence, that made it unclear whether the lightning strike hit a plane that was definitely going to be used for us, then they might have won under meteorological conditions being an EC.

Hope this helps others.


Nb it is well worth knowing your precedent cases inside out so you don't have to think on your feet too much as of course their side is far better prepared at how a Court works than you will be