Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

Gorbar wrote: »

Bott have already issued Thomsons with the court papers. My ? Does this still mean it will have to go through the court or will Thomson just pay everybody out !!!Sorry if I sound stupid.

Thomson have confirmed that, though they were refused leave to appeal, they will petition the Supreme Court directly. So the fat lady may not be singing just yet (though she's clearing her throat, self-evidently).

Bolly8

Vauban wrote: »

Thomson have confirmed that, though they were refused leave to appeal, they will petition the Supreme Court directly. So the fat lady may not be singing just yet (though she's clearing her throat, self-evidently).

If Thomson do appeal to the Supreme Court,will this mean we are on hold, again,pending the outcome?

keog76

does anyone know what has happened to the section on flight delays and cancellations?

Bolly8

Centipede100 wrote: »

Until or unless Thomson formally petition the SC then the Dawson judgment is precedent case law and should be followed by the courts.

Many thanks Centipede...Onwards & upwards then!

dxc_chappie

I wonder which corner of the room Thomson's preeminent QC is sobbing in now?

glentoran99

I actually agree with thomsons response, 2 years should be plenty of time. IF THE AIRLINES STOPPED (text removed by MSE Forum Team) ABOUT IN COURT

razorsedge

dxc_chappie wrote: »

I wonder which corner of the room Thomson's preeminent QC is sobbing in now?

Did anybody ever find out the QC's name? I asked in my NBA but was never answered.

Vauban

razorsedge wrote: »

Did anybody ever find out the QC's name? I asked in my NBA but was never answered.

No - but I don't think we should be hubristic. Remember Napoleon's adage about the difference between the sublime and the ridiculous ...

That said, as Centipede has already noted, this is a slam-dunk verdict. I particularly enjoyed para 17:

Judge Yelton dealt with the case in an admirably succinct, yet thorough, judgment. Having referred to the development of the European case law and to the parties’ rival contentions, he rejected the airline’s case as specious and illogical.

Tells you all you need to know really.

razorsedge

Vauban wrote: »

hubristic

I had to look that one up. Perhaps I should be a bit less gung-ho with my Rambo: First Blood Part II thoughts.
Afterall, I am up against the 'Thomsonater'.... Suddenly Arnold Schwarzenegger's voice chillingly popped into my head:
"I'll be back."

Vauban wrote: »

Remember Napoleon's adage about the difference between the sublime and the ridiculous ...

I had to look that one up too, and then get it translated!

Vauban wrote: »

That said, as Centipede has already noted, this is a slam-dunk verdict. I particularly enjoyed para 17:

Quote:
Judge Yelton dealt with the case in an admirably succinct, yet thorough, judgment. Having referred to the development of the European case law and to the parties’ rival contentions, he rejected the airline’s case as specious and illogical.
Tells you all you need to know really.

I am also glad the CoA Judges repeated the 'specious' reference.

Vauban

As a postscript, I was much amused by Thomson's claim to be the "UK's most on-time holiday airline". This is strictly true, perhaps. Though they might also add "Even though statistically fewer than four out of five of our journeys are actually on time."