Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

happychap7

Success at last. Thomson called today and offered to settle. We agreed on a reasonable figure. Well happy. I will post the full details when the cheque arrives !

legal_magpie

By way of an update, the view of some judges is that because Huzar is so shattering to most of the delay cases based on technical faults, sooner or later an airline may take a test case to the Court of Appeal but unless and until they do, Huzar is likely to be followed up and down the country

I did have two earlier cases of DJs in my skeleton argument from Worcester and Huddersfield but they weren't needed
JJ

JPears

Vauban wrote: »

Indeed - it is a brave man who libels a lawyer. (Though I think JP is confusing his birds). I mentioned the defence's counsel in my case because of the comments made at the end of His Honour's statement about the bullying of litigants-in-person.

It was explained to me by my opponent's barrister that, where only one side has counsel, the barrister has an obligation to the court as well as to his or her client, which means that they will generally - out of this sense of professional obligation - treat the LIP more gently and even assist on particular points of law or process. During the ten minutes or so of my own hearing (before it was adjourned) I found him absolutely true to his word.

Others may have had a different experience, but I didn't feel bullied or unduly coerced. Of course our adversarial form of justice doesn't make for an entirely comfortable experience, but I have great respect for the barristers - especially those who have to argue that black is white (or technical problems are extraordinary).

How many Birds are in this game?!
I doubt very much that not agreeing with someone else's opinion could be classed as libel.:)
Equally I would not use the word respect for somebody who attempts to argue/approve that black is white whilst being paid for it
As a mature, educated & experienced professional person used to dealing with, treating and interacting with the general public on a daily basis, I still found the court process quite intimidating with counsel and two witnesses facing me. Whilst not bullied or coerced, the degree of verbal barrage and legalese was somewhat disconcerting.
The whole HHJ Platts statement raises some very interesting points other than the specific EC/techs issue and I hope these will be discussed in due course.

panholio

Just back from the court. I won. Almost identical experience to Legal Magpie. The Judge Platt decision nailed them.

Will do a proper write up in the court success thread.

Thank you to everyone and in particular those that sent me documents that helped. I have emailed you guys individually.

The judge asked how I had got hold of the Huzar case so quickly as she had only been issued it yesterday. She said was I using an internet forum. I said yes.....!

JPears

panholio wrote: »

Just back from the court. I won. Almost identical experience to Legal Magpie. The Judge Platt decision nailed them.

Will do a proper write up in the court success thread.

Thank you to everyone and in particular those that sent me documents that helped. I have emailed you guys individually.

The judge asked how I had got hold of the Huzar case so quickly as she had only been issued it yesterday. She said was I using an internet forum. I said yes.....!

Marvellous. Congratulations :beer:

dp2603

Due in court next Monday and received a letter from Thomson today. They have asked the court to hear only the EC's part of the case and not the part relating to the 2 year limitation period.
They have written;

"The Defendant has recently made the decision to proceed with an appeal on the Dawson decision. The Defendant considers in the interests of the best use of court time the Court should hear the extraordinary circumstances argument. In the event that the court should find against the Defendant the Defendant now believes the claim should then be stayed until such time that the Court of Appeal gives judgement in this matter. The Defendant submits that this is the best course of action on the following basis:

1. The Court of Appeal will be able to review the argument in far greater detail than would be possible in this case

2. The Court of Appeal decision will be a precedent decision and will allow the lower court to apply said decision".

Is there any point in asking for the case to be heard in full next Monday, as Thomson have settled other cases in which the 2 year limit featured, or alternatively asking for the whole case to be stayed until after the appeal?

I would appreciate your comments and advice.

JPears

Is the alleged EC in your case likley to be flatted by the recent HHJ Platts statement? If so, I would go with the hearing, etablish you have won, then await outcome of the appeal, if your CC judge allows the requested stay.
Make sure judge adds interest, if you have claimed it, until the result of appeal.

dp2603

JPears wrote: »

Is the alleged EC in your case likley to be flatted by the recent HHJ Platts statement? If so, I would go with the hearing, etablish you have won, then await outcome of the appeal, if your CC judge allows the requested stay.
Make sure judge adds interest, if you have claimed it, until the result of appeal.

No. The EC's relate to previous flights causing a knock on effect to our flight.

Vauban

But I think JP's point is was the original delay caused by a technical failure or something else?

dp2603

Vauban wrote: »

But I think JP's point is was the original delay caused by a technical failure or something else?

Original delay caused by French ATC action and bad weather affecting previous flights.