Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

111KAB

chezza2524 wrote: »

Hi

Has anyone or does anyone know if the information from the flightstats website is admissible in court?

Thanx

It is not admissible as evidence of a delay however you can mention it in your bundle and you may also ask the defendant if they agree with the listing on the Flightstats website. Obviously if they disagree you cannot use.

chezza2524

Ok thank you.

In my bundle I have got:
Walletin, Reg 261, Huzar to combat the extraordinary circumstances, is this enough?

111KAB

chezza2524 wrote: »

Ok thank you.

In my bundle I have got:
Walletin, Reg 261, Huzar to combat the extraordinary circumstances, is this enough?

Really depends what Thomson have put in their letter where they said they would defend - normally these are the key cases - presume you are prepared for a possible stay due to the potential Huzar appeal? Did they mention the CAA guidelines?

chezza2524

111KAB wrote: »

Really depends what Thomson have put in their letter where they said they would defend - normally these are the key cases - presume you are prepared for a possible stay due to the potential Huzar appeal? Did they mention the CAA guidelines?

I haven't had anything from them since their defence, which said an unforeseen technical fault with the left engine fan blade on a previous sector (using flightstats I think it was 2 flights before ours). They did use the normal 2 year rule and the technical fault was 'in the alternative' but the judge has struck out the 2 year rule.

Camaro3

111KAB wrote: »

It is not admissible as evidence of a delay however you can mention it in your bundle and you may also ask the defendant if they agree with the listing on the Flightstats website. Obviously if they disagree you cannot use.

Interesting, Thomson sent me a print out from Flightstats where I asked for an SAR.

111KAB

chezza2524 wrote: »

They did use the normal 2 year rule ......... but the judge has struck out the 2 year rule.

Would like to see the actual wording for this as judges were tending to wait for/hide behind the Dawson appeal.

111KAB

Camaro3 wrote: »

Interesting, Thomson sent me a print out from Flightstats where I asked for an SAR.

Flightstats record of a flight has no jurisdiction in a court - the fact that Thomson sent to you however would seem to indicate they either have no record of their own flight (worrying!) or they are prepared to accept flightstats record.

chezza2524

111KAB wrote: »

Would like to see the actual wording for this as judges were tending to wait for/hide behind the Dawson appeal.

It says:

1) Paragraphs 3 to 9 of the Defence are struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a). Regulation 2027/97 has no application to the claim, which does not allege an accident: Bogiatzi -v- Deutscher Luftpool. Two year limitation period does not apply to claim under Regulation 261/2004: Move -v- KLM.

chezza2524

Do you know if there is anything other than Huzar which will have the same impact?

111KAB

chezza2524 wrote: »

Do you know if there is anything other than Huzar which will have the same impact?

chezza2524 - thanks for your reply re the two year limitation. Some people are questioning the impact, if any, of the Huzar case given the appeal is in limbo at the moment and the only other case I know where there is a transcript is my own (I will PM you the details) although mine also has less 'impact' due to the fact it was only before a district judge.