Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

legal_magpie

SEW56 wrote: »

It seems to me that in preparing a pack for court I will keep it simple - copy of the relevant judgements plus various emails.

This is sensible. Remember that all you have to prove is that you were on the flight and it was delayed. It is then up to Thomson to show why they aren't liable. If they intend to run the EC defence, they have to produce evidence which is usually in the form of witness statements from a technical bod and an operations manager. When you get them, you should go through them with a fine toothcomb and look for inconsistencies and errors.

You will need to do a short witness statement confirming that you and your party were all passengers on the flight and that it was delayed. Exhibit any relevant correspondence. Don't include legal argument or copies of cases. Keep them for your skeleton argument (if you do one) which you don't have to serve in advance.
JJ

Moneyedout

Should Thomson send me a copy of their defence when they send one to the court?
I was advised over the phone by the court that Thomson had filed a defence on 24th February but as yet have heard nothing from the court or Thomson themselves. When serving a claim the court and the defendant have to have a copy so does that apply when the defence is filed?

Mark2spark

Yes they should. Mostly they don't, in complete disregard for the court process. Phone the court and ask them for a copy.

razorsedge

Moneyedout wrote: »

Should Thomson send me a copy of their defence when they send one to the court?
I was advised over the phone by the court that Thomson had filed a defence on 24th February but as yet have heard nothing from the court or Thomson themselves. When serving a claim the court and the defendant have to have a copy so does that apply when the defence is filed?

Not unusual for Thomson to ignore Court process. They probably won't send to you (serve) their allocation questionaire either when that is due.

I suggest you write to the Court pointing out the defficencies from Thomson and then respectfully request that 'The Court ensures that the Defendant complies in a timely manner with all court orders and directions.'

This is covered by CPR Part 1.1 (2) (a) & (f).

lesley_uk

Finally had a call from Thomson saying they had agreed we were due compensation and cheque would be in the post within 28 days (after previously stating extraordinary circumstance) we passed the claim to the CAA last August, so if anyone is claiming 24 hour delay Sanford Fl to Birmingham 23 April 2011 where we were delayed so they could use the plane to fly home those affected by a birdstrike hang in there and keep fighting.

Goagoer

Thomson filed a defence on 28th February. Anyone know long after this is done the Allocation Questionnaire is usually sent out?

David_e

Goagoer wrote: »

Thomson filed a defence on 28th February. Anyone know long after this is done the Allocation Questionnaire is usually sent out?

I can't recall exactly but it was weeks rather than months. It wasn't a major piece of work to deal with and certainly procedural rather than legal/technical.

bigstevex

I'm a bit worried about the reason for the delay of our flight now... Thomson won't tell me but I'm pretty it sure it was medical emergancy related on the flight a day earlier which knocked everything back.... How would the court view this? From some research the following happened....

17-7-08 - Flight from Man-Varadero on time...

17-7-08 - Flight from Varadero to Man (should land 7am 18/8) - This was delayed by 12 hrs.. This is the bit I believe had the medical emergancy..

18-7-08 Knock on effect 9am Man-Punta Cana Left 12 Hours late at
9pm..

18-7-08 Punta cana - Man (Our flight) left 8 hours late from another airport as punta cana can't have night flights...

What are peoples thoughts?

Mark2spark

bigstevex wrote: »

What are peoples thoughts?

Thomson had over 12 hours to rearrange something else, and failed. Pay up.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

Thomson had over 12 hours to rearrange something else, and failed. Pay up.

I agree. I think this fails the "all reasonable measures" test.