Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

jenn1ewest1

Trigger16 wrote: »

I'm due in court in a couple of days. I have had a call from Thomsons advising that the Court had asked them to ring me as it would be to my benefit to agree to a stay (based on Huzar Appeal). I replied no thank you.

I have removed all references to Huzar from my court bundle and I am preparing for the case. I am working on the basis that Thomson would have to make a formal application to stay the hearing and then its up to the judge to decide.

Why do you think that they are asking us to agree to stay the hearing with them?

I think it is to save the money and delay us in the hopes of a lot of us just giving up.I have sent my bundle in so I suppose I am going to have to ask the Judge to disregard Huzar on the day

Kew73

ErnieW wrote: »

Bundle sent to Court & Thomson and then low and behold a letter arrives asking for a stay from Thomson on the Dawson appeal & Huzar appeal.......looks like a lot of people in the same boat....are you agreeing to the stays or are you objecting? Any info or help highly appreciated.....and my claim is from 2010 on EC's

I've objected to their request (on both counts) in a letter to the court - along the lines of Cubatony's suggestion (thanks v helpful!) for Huzar, plus included the original 2 year argument from the thread on here for Dawson. Not sure it will make any difference but hopefully it sends the right message to Thomson!

kivin

Hi - partial success to report.


My court date was a few weeks ago and Thomsons were disputing it on EC and the limitation period.


In court, Thomsons wanted the whole case stayed pending the Dawson appeal, however, the judge agreed to stay only the limitation defence and proceed with the EC argument on the day.


The judge requested that he needed additional time to think through and therefore did not make judgment on the day, but would send a written judgment through.


I received this yesterday in the post and Thomson's defence on EC was dismissed. The claim has therefore been stayed pending the outcome of the Dawson appeal. The judge did say on the day that he didn't think Thomsons will win their appeal.


Thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread as I have read every post. Special thanks to Vauban for providing additional advise and guidance

Charlied77

Hi all. Firstly, thanks to everyone for their help. This forum has been a life saver.

Our court date is this Tuesday (soon I know!). Just wondering if anyone might be able to give a couple of pointers for my case

I am helping my Mother claim for a 24hr35min delay on our holiday. We are outside of the 2 year window, but brought the claim under the 6 year EU regs.

Apparently, our flight was delayed due to 'engine vibration' which Thomson claim are EC. They provided no other info, so fairly confident EC cannot be proved here.

I received documentation from the court informing me that Thomson had requested a stay on the hearing pending the outcome of the Dawson case. The court rejected the request as Thomson had not included the correct fee for this action...

As the stay was rejected, I was wondering if they still have grounds to ask for an appeal if we are successful? Could I argue against this?

Any help gratefully received

JPears

kivin wrote: »

Hi - partial success to report.


My court date was a few weeks ago and Thomsons were disputing it on EC and the limitation period.


In court, Thomsons wanted the whole case stayed pending the Dawson appeal, however, the judge agreed to stay only the limitation defence and proceed with the EC argument on the day.


The judge requested that he needed additional time to think through and therefore did not make judgment on the day, but would send a written judgment through.


I received this yesterday in the post and Thomson's defence on EC was dismissed. The claim has therefore been stayed pending the outcome of the Dawson appeal. The judge did say on the day that he didn't think Thomsons will win their appeal.


Thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread as I have read every post. Special thanks to Vauban for providing additional advise and guidance

Well done - Bazinga!

retatco

A DJ at Bournemouth has granted Thomson a stay in our case on the basis of a letter quoting the Dawson appeal. I phoned the court asking if they had applied for the stay via form N244 they said only via letter and I could write to the judge to question the decision.
I had a second copy of a Thomson appeal, again a letter, quoting both Dawson and Huzar that the court has not acted upon yet.
I wonder if it is best to state that I am aware that Thomson Airways have not followed the correct procedure in requesting a stay but that I respect the Judge's decision but if there is then a further stay granted due to Huzar to come out fighting.

richardw

Perhaps advise the DJ that Thomson have not followed the correct procedure.

retatco

Yes, I intend to do that but that I respect his decision for the stay due to the Dawson appeal. Huzar is a different matter though when the judge gets to that letter.

richardw

retatco wrote: »

... I respect his decision for the stay due to the Dawson appeal…..

But the decision was not based on knowledge about the incorrect procedure, so why the 'respect'?

retatco wrote: »

... Huzar is a different matter though when the judge gets to that letter.

What are you saying in this letter?
It is not yet clear if Jet2 will actually be granted permission to appeal.

retatco

Yes,and that I do not require Huzar to present my case.
Regarding 'respect' I can do nothing about Dawson and would like to stay in the good books of the judiciary!