Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

legal_magpie

Judges can't be that relaxed as they can only award compensation to people who are parties to proceedings but if the Claim is expressed to be made on behalf of the lead passenger and others, many Judges will allow the claim form to amended to include the other passengers as Claimants without the need for reservice.

Bolly8

Many thanks for your replies.Do I understand,from them,that,providing he has completed the necessary ' litigation friend' forms,my husband can represent our group,in court and,also,be a litigation friend to the children?
Another question:if we commence court proceedings now and Thomson's appeal,against Dawson is upheld,will we have lost our court fees?

David_e

Bolly8 wrote: »

Do I understand,from them,that,providing he has completed the necessary ' litigation friend' forms,my husband can represent our group,in court and,also,be a litigation friend to the children?

The "litigation friend" can (as I understand it) act/claim for those who cannot (rather than don't wish to) represent themselves, so children yes, adults (with capacity to act) no.

The adults should simply be additional claimants on the form. There's no additional fees for multiple claimants (as far as I am aware). Therefore, there is no obvious downside to all the claimants being listed (apart from the fact that they have to sign the claim in the first instance).

I believe from what I have read here that you can have someone represent you in court, should it come to that.

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

The "litigation friend" can (as I understand it) act/claim for those who cannot (rather than don't wish to) represent themselves, so children yes, adults (with capacity to act) no.

The adults should simply be additional claimants on the form. There's no additional fees for multiple claimants (as far as I am aware). Therefore, there is no obvious downside to all the claimants being listed (apart from the fact that they have to sign the claim in the first instance).

I believe from what I have read here that you can have someone represent you in court, should it come to that.

Actually, there is an additional cost to adding claimants. The fees are on a sliding scale according to the value of the claim. So a claim for 8 people will be more than for 2. Sometimes pushing a "test case" for one or two is better and cheaper, and you can then apply for the other 6 if you secure a victory. Either way, I'd now wait for Dawson and Huzar, if relevant to your case. They're only weeks away.

Bolly8

Vauban wrote: »

Actually, there is an additional cost to adding claimants. The fees are on a sliding scale according to the value of the claim. So a claim for 8 people will be more than for 2. Sometimes pushing a "test case" for one or two is better and cheaper, and you can then apply for the other 6 if you secure a victory. Either way, I'd now wait for Dawson and Huzar, if relevant to your case. They're only weeks away.

Thank you,Vauban. It is because of the court costs for nine people that made me wonder about hanging on. ( sounds prudent to wait!)In your opinion,if we were to try a test case for two people,do you think this would sway the outcome for the further seven- or is it dependent on the judge,on the day?

Vauban

Bolly8 wrote: »

Thank you,Vauban. It is because of the court costs for nine people that made me wonder about hanging on. ( sounds prudent to wait!)In your opinion,if we were to try a test case for two people,do you think this would sway the outcome for the further seven- or is it dependent on the judge,on the day?

It doesn't absolutely follow that because some of your party win, others would also. Each legal action is assessed on its merits. No formal precedents are set.

However, in practice I think an airline would find it difficult and uncomfortable re-defending a case they previously lost. I suspect a judge would not be sympathetic. Indeed many - though not all - would likely not contest it if you brought a case for the remainder.

I think the "test case" approach is the better one. Not least as well because a big expensive case has a larger chance (I reckon) of being properly defended by an airline. I am calling this approach the "three billy goats gruff" strategem.

But I'd still now wait for Dawson and Huzar - assuming you are comfortably within 6 years.

Bolly8

Vauban wrote: »

It doesn't absolutely follow that because some of your party win, others would also. Each legal action is assessed on its merits. No formal precedents are set.

However, in practice I think an airline would find it difficult and uncomfortable re-defending a case they previously lost. I suspect a judge would not be sympathetic. Indeed many - though not all - would likely not contest it if you brought a case for the remainder.

I think the "test case" approach is the better one. Not least as well because a big expensive case has a larger chance (I reckon) of being properly defended by an airline. I am calling this approach the "three billy goats gruff" strategem.

But I'd still now wait for Dawson and Huzar - assuming you are comfortably within 6 years.

This all makes sense to me ..We will await the result of the appeals & then do a test case.Many thanks.

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

Actually, there is an additional cost to adding claimants. The fees are on a sliding scale according to the value of the claim. So a claim for 8 people will be more than for 2. Sometimes pushing a "test case" for one or two is better and cheaper, and you can then apply for the other 6 if you secure a victory. Either way, I'd now wait for Dawson and Huzar, if relevant to your case. They're only weeks away.

Whoops, another badly expressed response from me! Apologies.

(I think) what I meant was in comparison to individual claims for each. Given that a claim is more than likely to be succesful (if claimants have done their homwork), the court fees will be repaid

One potential disadvantage of the "test case" approach is that (to the best of my knowledge!) you don't get interest if the airline pays without court action being taken. Although interest is at the discretion of the judge, any claim more than a year older could carry quite a significant interest "bonus" potential.

Moneyedout

We have successfully added Thomson Airways to our original claim which was originally incorrectly issued to TUI. Thomson defence was that as I had used the wrong defendant I would have to re-issue the claim and would then be outside the 6 year limit. All lies of course.
The query I have now is that the official date of service for the addition of another defendant was 29th January with their acknowledgement due by the 12th Feb. I rang the court around 18th Feb and was advised to email the court to ask for further directions from the judge as Thomson were late which I duly did.
On arriving back a week later from a break, I find an acknowledgement from Thomson dated 19th Feb, 7 days late, with notification that their defence was to follow. I contacted the court again only to be told that they had no record of my previous email ( although I have an automated email acknowledgement) and to resend it. I queried the fact the Thomson were out of date with their Acknowledgment of Service which they did not seem to have noticed.
On checking their outstanding pile of correspondence she then came across their defence which was dated the 24th Feb. which she read out to me over the phone. She suggested that I still ask for further directions from the judge because of the lax time keeping of Thomson.
If I had been so lax I am sure Thomson would have wanted the whole thing thrown out. How do they get away with it?
As yet I have received no copy of their defence.
Should Thomson have sent me one or do I have to wait to hear from the courts.
I wonder how likely it is that the judge will come down on my side and give a judgement? Thomson will no doubt then appeal against it.

Goagoer

Goagoer wrote: »

I received Thomson's defence in the post today, dated exactly 28 days after the claim was issued.
They STILL haven't given any reason for the five and three quarter hour delay to our flight. Their defence concentrates solely on their 2 year rule. It comprises only 12 points; 5 of these refer to the Montreal Convention. The last point states As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate. I didn't claim interest!
The defence is not what I was expecting, it's so flimsy and shallow I can't imagine a trained legal mind will be very impressed!
I'll wait to see what the court's response to this is and what my next step should be.

A question for the more experienced in these matters. I'm wondering whether Thomson can add to their defence. As I've already said, they've never given any reason for the delay so I haven't researched the extraordinary circumstances cases such as Wallentin and Huzar, concentrating instead on Dawson. Am I being naïve to assume the defence I've now received from Thomson is the final one or should I be prepared for them add to their defence as they choose?