Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

tonxy22

Hi all

I am just preparing my court bundle ready for my hearing in December against Thomson.

I have the Huzar vs Jet 2 appeal document and the Brittain vs Monarch in my armoury so am feeling like I have all info I need. I also will include EC reg 261/2004, Montreal Convention, EC reg 2027/97. I also have the BBC overview / transcript of their recent Watchdog program in which they destroyed the airlines and CAA for their apathy in dealing with this - I hope this will add weight to my arguement.

For the bundle - do I literally put in full copies of all legislation and references I inted to rely on?? Or do I just pick out the pages I want to refer to?? Do I annotate the items I wish to be referred to?

Also, Legal Magpie mentioned a skeleton arguement - do I submit an outline document at the front of the bundle?

Any tips on the bundle much appreciated - it all seems very real now as I head to the court date but I feel very re-assured with the recent stories on here!!

panholio

tonxy22 wrote: »

Hi all

I am just preparing my court bundle ready for my hearing in December against Thomson.

I have the Huzar vs Jet 2 appeal document and the Brittain vs Monarch in my armoury so am feeling like I have all info I need. I also will include EC reg 261/2004, Montreal Convention, EC reg 2027/97. I also have the BBC overview / transcript of their recent Watchdog program in which they destroyed the airlines and CAA for their apathy in dealing with this - I hope this will add weight to my arguement.

For the bundle - do I literally put in full copies of all legislation and references I inted to rely on?? Or do I just pick out the pages I want to refer to?? Do I annotate the items I wish to be referred to?

Also, Legal Magpie mentioned a skeleton arguement - do I submit an outline document at the front of the bundle?

Any tips on the bundle much appreciated - it all seems very real now as I head to the court date but I feel very re-assured with the recent stories on here!!

Are Thomson defending on a technical fault? I'd be surprised if they didn't settle given the Platts Judgement.

If not you need to put in your bundle your Witness Statement - i.e. your explanation of what happened and your particulars of claim i.e. your argument in simple terms.

I would then include full copies of legislation and any case law you are referring to our relying on in your particulars of claim. I would reproduce the paragraphs that are releveant/ you want to draw attention to in your particulars.

legal_magpie

A skeleton argument is simply a summary of what your case is. It is useful because the Judge will read it before you go in so he will know what you intend to say. It usually sets out the law and the facts but doesn't repeat witness statements.
If anyone would like a copy of my skeleton argument (redacted to omit personal information ) to use as a template I will be happy to oblige. Just pm me with your e-mail address.

panholio

^^ and that as well. Just to clear that all up for you, you submit your skeleton argument on the day. Particulars and witness statements in your bundle 2 weeks before.

tonxy22

panholio wrote: »

Are Thomson defending on a technical fault? I'd be surprised if they didn't settle given the Platts Judgement.

If not you need to put in your bundle your Witness Statement - i.e. your explanation of what happened and your particulars of claim i.e. your argument in simple terms.

I would then include full copies of legislation and any case law you are referring to our relying on in your particulars of claim. I would reproduce the paragraphs that are releveant/ you want to draw attention to in your particulars.

Many thanks!

They are defending EC's due to a Right Engine Lube Module Change - seems similar to all the other claims??

andresykes

Centipede100 wrote: »

1. Because that's what the Reg states;) or

2. Airlines can mitigate delays caused by meteorological conditions to certain aircraft by relying on alternative aircraft or the means to be able to charter such at their disposal. ATCs affecting a particular aircraft thus causing a delay to said aircraft is not able to be mitigated by the airline.

Is anyone aware of any successful claims where the EC argument for knock on delays was dismissed by the court or a skeleton argument against it?

andresykes

Centipede100 wrote: »

1. Because that's what the Reg states;) or

2. Airlines can mitigate delays caused by meteorological conditions to certain aircraft by relying on alternative aircraft or the means to be able to charter such at their disposal. ATCs affecting a particular aircraft thus causing a delay to said aircraft is not able to be mitigated by the airline.

Yes I follow what you mean - if ATC is on strike then no planes will fly regardless of what contingencies the airline has in place. I guess all the other EC's can be mitigated to some extent.

Tunisian_girl

Mark2spark wrote: »

They have stated that their position is final, therefore it's off to court you go.

If you like letter writing you can have one more try and send them

I sent an e mail today and attached the documents and quoted paragraph 27. This is my reply.



Thank you for your correspondence, I am advised to inform you that our decision remains the same and that this unfortunately is our final stance with regards to our previous communications.

Vauban

Tunisian_girl wrote: »

I sent an e mail today and attached the documents and quoted paragraph 27. This is my reply.

Thank you for your correspondence, I am advised to inform you that our decision remains the same and that this unfortunately is our final stance with regards to our previous communications.

Sounds like Mark's advice was spot on then ...

DTDfanBoy

Mark2spark wrote: »

The point of an appeal escapes me. TUi and Easyjet appealed the cases up to the Grand Chamber (Sturgeon joined cases) and lost.

Would this forum be quite as busy had they won