Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

richardw

.....please delete.

legal_magpie

I would not be surprised if they do ask the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal Huzar as it is a very sweeping judgment and is being quoted and relied on in cases up and down the country. In my own case I was ready to argue not that a technical defect can never be an Extraordinary circumstance but that in my case it wasn't because they had failed to tighten up the screws on the bayonet fitting between the fuel bowser and the aircraft.
Also it could be argued (although not by me) that some of the Judge's comments were "obiter" (i.e. comments made by the judge of a general nature rather than relating to the facts of that case).

The basis of any appeal would be that Judge Platts was wrong in law or else came to a decision that no reasonable Judge could reach. Unless and until an appeal is successful it remains good law and can be cited unless the Court of Appeal decides that all cases on the subject should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal (as happened in Nelson). In the meantime though, I would keep on issuing.

Thirdwatch1965

Sent claim to Thomson airlines about 5 hour delay from sanford to manchester in july 2012 but got usual reply from them. Sent all paperwork to CAA who have now sent it back thomson to reconsider claim. My question is am i likely to get any further reply from them or would i be better going to snall claims court.

Thesiteagent

I'm sorry but if people cannot be bothered to read through the posts on this forum, where most of the info they need is, then they probably have not got the oomph to take their case to court.
Some people would perhaps be better off going down the no win no fee route.
This is not aimed at anyone in particular, rather it is just a general comment.

dxc_chappie

legal_magpie wrote: »

I would not be surprised if they do ask the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal Huzar as it is a very sweeping judgment and is being quoted and relied on in cases up and down the country. In my own case I was ready to argue not that a technical defect can never be an Extraordinary circumstance but that in my case it wasn't because they had failed to tighten up the screws on the bayonet fitting between the fuel bowser and the aircraft.
Also it could be argued (although not by me) that some of the Judge's comments were "obiter" (i.e. comments made by the judge of a general nature rather than relating to the facts of that case).

The basis of any appeal would be that Judge Platts was wrong in law or else came to a decision that no reasonable Judge could reach. Unless and until an appeal is successful it remains good law and can be cited unless the Court of Appeal decides that all cases on the subject should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal (as happened in Nelson). In the meantime though, I would keep on issuing.

IMHO an appeal should be refused. The excuse of tech faults as ECs has aleady been challenged and ruled upon in the highest EU court in the Walletin case - Huzar is just reinforcing that ruling, which is something DJs in English courts are failing to do in many cases. If an appeal is allowed for Huzar it will, in effect, challenge the vailidity of Walletin, which will just make a mockery of the authority of the ECJ in English courts.

legal_magpie

There is a difference between getting permission to appeal and the hearing of the appeal itself. Either the trial judge or the Court of Appeal will grant permission where, for example, there are conflicting court decisions or where a higher court is asked to rule on an important point of principle. It doesn't follow that because permission is granted the appeal will automatically succeed.

richardw

dxc_chappie wrote: »

.......The excuse of tech faults as ECs has aleady been challenged and ruled upon in the highest EU court in the Walletin case - Huzar is just reinforcing that ruling, which is something DJs in English courts are failing to do in many cases....

Exactly, the problem is some subjective DJs who aren't being objective and considering all aspects of law.

Some airlines are just being unreasonable and time wasting, egged on by solicitors who should really be doing more CSR work.

pryfin

No we havent sent any emails we just revieved a phone call. We have heard that we are entiteld to more money. We are just thinking if anyone has heard anything other than this.

jayw996

Hi,
I have been watching and reading with great interest. My flight was delayed 26 hours from LGW to MLE TOM 054 on the 5th Dec 2010. I made the complaint on my return to be told by Thomson that "They had no policy for compensation". I complained again and also to the Thomson shop I booked it through. I got the same response. I was not aware of the law. Now I have been told it is over 2 years and they are not budging. So I went down the small claims route, and they responded to say they would defend the claim. Then nothing, 28 days passed, still nothing. So I requested judgement and got it in my favour.....yipee! or not? Now they want it set aside as the defence went to the wrong court? Oh that old chestnut I thought! So it has been transferred to my local court to have the application heard to have it set aside. I have looked through the forum and cannot find this happening before. Does anyone know if this hearing is just to get it set aside or can I request to have it heard on that day. Or can I argue for it not to be set aside? Thomson have already told me if they get it set aside they will then push for a delay until the Dawson appeal is over. I personally feel that as I complained originally at the time, the two year case is irrelevant to me and so I want to have the case heard. Any thoughts, apologies if I have missed a key thread. Oh and if anyone else was on that flight please PM me. I can only find info on the MAN to MLE flight.

legal_magpie

You have done well to get a judgment. You should fight the application fully.

To succeed Thomson will have to show (a) why they allowed the judgment to be entered in the first place (b) that they acted promptly and (c) that they have a REAL prospect of success. The last is the most important.

They should have either served you with a witness statement or else completed Part C of the form in detail. If they haven't bothered, the Judge will probably throw it out. If they have, you need to have your arguments ready, ideally in a statement.

If they succeed Thomson will be ordered to file and serve a full defence. I consider the limitation point to be bad especially because you intimated your claim in time and they fobbed you off.