Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

ftd83

David_e wrote: »

As far as I am aware, you can't claim "on behalf of " others. You all need to be named as claimants (albeit on one claim form with one set of fees) and, if any of the claimants is a minor, you need to act as their "litigation friend" by including a completed form (N235 from memory). All of this is likely to mean that you can't submit the claim online but will have to go down the paper based route. No major difference as I understand it apart from slightly higher fees.

If you have plenty of time, you and your wife, say, could submit a claim, and then the rest of the family ought to be able to rely on a successful outcome.

If you search on N235, "locus standii" or "locus standi" you'll see the point discussed.

I won putting myself as the claimant and just put that I was claiming for 2 sets of compensation for my party. This was never an issue in the court and even the Thomson barrister said that the money for the flights was paid by me so they would be dealing with me, not my partner. Judge never had any issue with this and I got my 400 euro x 2.

I think the case would have been looked on less favourably if say a group of my friends had all paid seperately and then I tried to claim for all 10 people.

I think a family group/couple claiming would have no trouble with this point.

happychap7

ftd83 wrote: »

I won putting myself as the claimant and just put that I was claiming for 2 sets of compensation for my party. This was never an issue in the court and even the Thomson barrister said that the money for the flights was paid by me so they would be dealing with me, not my partner. Judge never had any issue with this and I got my 400 euro x 2.

I think the case would have been looked on less favourably if say a group of my friends had all paid seperately and then I tried to claim for all 10 people.

I think a family group/couple claiming would have no trouble with this point.

I know it hasn't happened to anyone else on here but my 1st claim was struck out by a judge at Northampton court because I used mcol and not ccmcc. I then had to start again and fill in the n1 and n235 to act as litigation friends for my children. I got my wife to sign as well confirming I could represent her. Is it worth risking it?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

David_e

ftd83 wrote: »

I think a family group/couple claiming would have no trouble with this point.

I'm only going on what I have read on here and what I was told by my local court. This is a claim for statutory compensation rather than a conrcatual dispute so the point about who paid or booked shouldn't (strictly) matter.

happychap7 confirms my understanding but if you got round it, great.

dxc_chappie

Kew73 wrote: »

I've also received a second stay letter from Thomson today -this time relating to Huzar. The covering letter says that they've requested a stay 'as we are aware that points relevant to this case are to be considered by the Court of Appeal' and they 'expect the Court to stay the matter pending the outcomes of the appeal which is likely to be heard mid 2014.
- surely this is all ifs and buts at this stage? When will we find out if the appeal has actually been granted?

The letter continues...
'We appreciate that this will delay things further, however it is important for both of us to have some clarity concerning the law. We hope that you are agreeable to the same and will notify the Court of your agreement'.

Should i now notify the court of my disagreement (on the basis that the appeal hasn't been granted?). Not sure what to do as my case will probably be stayed because of the Dawson appeal anyway??

Really grateful for any advice

They must be batch sending these out as I got one as well. This is the second one for me too.

At my hearing in the summer they dropped the EC issue and only contested the time limitation. As this was soon after the Dawson ruling the DJ put on slopey shoulders and adjourned the claim so it could be heard by a circuit judge which was scheduled for a few weeks time, but now the court has stayed my case until further notice based on Thomson's first request to wait for the outcome of the Dawson appeal.

Is there any value in writing to the court pointing out they dropped the tech fault EC defence and as such a (further) stay is unnecessary and irrelevant? Thoughts anyone?

JarvJarv

David_e
ftd83
happychap7

Many thanks for your input. Perhaps I will give the MCOL helpline a call tomorrow and in the meantime work on the n1 and n235. JJ

David_e

JarvJarv wrote: »

David_e
ftd83
happychap7

Many thanks for your input. Perhaps I will give the MCOL helpline a call tomorrow and in the meantime work on the n1 and n235. JJ

It's the same info for the N1 whether online or otherwise and the N235 is a 5 minute job.

Good luck!

Cubatony2002

I have received (as have others it appears) a request from Thomson for the court to "use its discretion and stay the matter until such time that the Court of Appeal judgement [in the Huzar v Jet2.com case - I assume] has been handed down.

Any suggestions on the grounds that I could refuse this stay? I am not sure how this would stand up in court but Thomson initially took 110 days to rely to my original letter. Hsd they have replied within the 28 days that their initial customer service reply said they aimed to reply in and the timeline had remained the same my court date would have been before the Huzar case was heard. Due to dragging feet Thomson now find they are in a more advantageous position.

Also, Thomson are now obviously worried that I will win. I do feel that even without this legislation I will win (i.e. on the Wallentin test) after reading their bundle.

Furthermore, is an appeal automatically granted or do Jet2.Com have to apply for it. "The Respondent has filed an appeal" according to the Thomson letter so will it actually get to the Court of Appeal or does this mean that the ball has started rolling.

Any help or advice appreciated!!

Cuba T

SGP

I used MCOL, with a brief Particulars of Claim, reserving the right to amend them if necessary and claimed on behalf of my party, in my position as lead passenger. I claimed for four of us and since I paid Thomson initially and was named as the lead passenger on all the paperwork from them, I used the same tack with my claim.

Their cheque arrived at the weekend, for all four of us. Their brief attempted to argue this point at the hearing, but failed to sway the judge that I was not able to make a claim on behalf of the entire party.

tonxy22

Centipede100 wrote: »

You could always write to the court stating that you withdraw any reliance on Huzar in your claim merely relying on precedent case law (Wallentin-Hermann & Sturgeon) and that there is then no reason the hearing cannot take place.

I'd check Cubatony that its actually Huzar or the Dawson case...both letters I have received state they are awaiting the decision of the Dawson case. They don't mention Huzar - I asume as that is already an appealed case??

Cardiffkoook

Hi I have issued a claim against TUI UK LTD, TUI have responded and have advised that they cannot be pursued as the operating carrier was Thomson Airways Ltd.

My original paperwork clearly states that my contract is with TUI UK
LTD.

Do i respond to the defence or do i need to amend my claim to issue against Thomson Airways Ltd.

As no other issues have been raised and my contract is with TUI does this put me in a strong position or can TUI/Thomson bring up further issues at a later stage?

Thanks.