Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

legal_magpie

If the airline was stupid enough to fight a case solely because the passenger refused to agree to a gagging clause, the Judge wouldn't (or at any rate shouldn't) be aware of the proposed settlement until the very end of the hearing as such settlement negotiations are privileged and should not be disclosed otherwise the person who reveals it (usually the claimant) runs the risk of an adjournment and a wasted costs order against him.
BUT if the claimant won the case and then disclosed that he had been prepared to settle and the only issue was their insistence on a gagging clause, I have no doubt that the Judge would find that this amounted to unreasonable conduct and would make a full costs order.
My own view is that of Vauban's in that the airlines are trying it on.

Grumpelstiltskin

Is it me or what but what I am thinking is this.


Thomson ask me to sign a gagging clause which I do, I get the money in my bank and I go public.


What can Thomson do once they have paid the money out?

JPears

legal_magpie wrote: »

If the airline was stupid enough to fight a case solely because the passenger refused to agree to a gagging clause, the Judge wouldn't (or at any rate shouldn't) be aware of the proposed settlement until the very end of the hearing as such settlement negotiations are privileged and should not be disclosed otherwise the person who reveals it (usually the claimant) runs the risk of an adjournment and a wasted costs order against him.
BUT if the claimant won the case and then disclosed that he had been prepared to settle and the only issue was their insistence on a gagging clause, I have no doubt that the Judge would find that this amounted to unreasonable conduct and would make a full costs order.
My own view is that of Vauban's in that the airlines are trying it on.

Unreasonable conduct on who's part? The claimant or defendent? If the defendent refuses a settlement without gagging clause incuded, surely the issue is then forced to court because of the defendent's insistance on an unreasonable term?
These shoudn't be regarded by the airlines as ex gratia payments, without liability admitted. They are compensatin payments due under law, over which the airline has no choice but to comply or face the legal consequences.

legal_magpie

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned but I belong to the school of thought that if people enter into agreements they should keep to them. Provided the agreement was properly worded (and if I had drawn it up it would be) they would probably apply for the money to be repaid and would succeed

Vauban

legal_magpie wrote: »

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned but I belong to the school of thought that if people enter into agreements they should keep to them. Provided the agreement was properly worded (and if I had drawn it up it would be) they would probably apply for the money to be repaid and would succeed

That's not old fashioned - it's a question of basic integrity.

But I tend to agree with JP that it is not illegitimate to resist a gagging clause or for that matter to push for a particular rate of interest, especially when the sums involved are not insignificant. My broader point though, and the reason for my post, was to emphasise that the airlines are trying it on when they offer a sub-optimal settlement. They have no legal defence and, as you remain at liberty to claim what you have claimed, people should feel confident when negotiating any settlement with them.

(Of course 111KAB is also quite right that claimants might want to consider whether the difference in the sums offered/claimed are worth the undoubted hassle of going to court. Though I found my experience quite cathartic!)

dblue75

I have just received a cheque today from TUI(Thomson) for £960 for Gatwick-Cancun delay 26/08/14.... !!! Result

legal_magpie

JPears wrote: »

Unreasonable conduct on who's part? The claimant or defendent? If the defendent refuses a settlement without gagging clause incuded, surely the issue is then forced to court because of the defendent's insistance on an unreasonable term?
These shoudn't be regarded by the airlines as ex gratia payments, without liability admitted. They are compensatin payments due under law, over which the airline has no choice but to comply or face the legal consequences.

I agree entirely. The airlines are quite unreasonable to insist on a gagging clause but if someone does agree to it, perhaps in return for the airline agreeing to pay higher interest, they should keep to what they agreed

nicki_d987

Hi,


So further to my post about Thomson not copying me into correspondence . . . .


Today I receive, from the court, a General Form of Judgement or Order which says:


1. The claim be stayed for possible settlement for a period of nine weeks from the date of service of this order.
2. The claimant must notify the K-u-T civil hearing centre (?) in writing whether or not the claim has been settled within 10 weeks from the date of service of this order.


Does this mean that Thomson have 9 weeks to make me an offer, and that I need to notify the court within 10 weeks of the outcome. If no settlement reached the stay is lifted?


Also, never heard of the civil hearing centre, is that just another term for the court?


Many thanks,


Nicki

JPears

legal_magpie wrote: »

I agree entirely. The airlines are quite unreasonable to insist on a gagging clause but if someone does agree to it, perhaps in return for the airline agreeing to pay higher interest, they should keep to what they agreed

Agreed. More fool them for accepting conditions to receive what is rightfully theirs.

JPears

nicki_d987 wrote: »

Hi,


So further to my post about Thomson not copying me into correspondence . . . .


Today I receive, from the court, a General Form of Judgement or Order which says:


1. The claim be stayed for possible settlement for a period of nine weeks from the date of service of this order.
2. The claimant must notify the K-u-T civil hearing centre (?) in writing whether or not the claim has been settled within 10 weeks from the date of service of this order.


Does this mean that Thomson have 9 weeks to make me an offer, and that I need to notify the court within 10 weeks of the outcome. If no settlement reached the stay is lifted?


Also, never heard of the civil hearing centre, is that just another term for the court?


Many thanks,


Nicki

It would appear that the court are giving Thomson a chance to play nice,post Huzar/Dawson and pay up or face the consequences. Now is your time to put the pressure on Thomson to cough up, in full.