Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

Medis111

Hi,

Just came to let you all know that I have won my case after the hearing on Tuesday. RA lawyers didnt even turn up. RA has to pay within 21 days, but will see if that happens.

I want to thank to everyone that helped me, and my offer for beers still stand whenever you're in Leeds Dr Watson. Thanks again.

Dr_Watson

Medis111 wrote: »

Hi,

Just came to let you all know that I have won my case after the hearing on Tuesday. RA lawyers didnt even turn up. RA has to pay within 21 days, but will see if that happens.

I want to thank to everyone that helped me, and my offer for beers still stand whenever you're in Leeds Dr Watson. Thanks again.

Medis111,
Well done, you kept going and didn't give up- even attending court.
Next time this Doctor makes the short journey up the M1, i'll give you a shout.
:beer:

legal_magpie

Dr_Watson wrote: »

If dartilov hadn't have started his claim using this process and by paying the court fee applicable, he wouldn't be at this point now, RA clearly ignored his LBA/NBA and thought he would go away fully knowing, as they have now acquiesced that he was right.
I'd fully expect the return of the fee that it has took to get me to this point. It would be a bloody hard judge that would deem this action unreasonable.
.

I agree entirely. My previous comment was intended to be solely theoretical. Each case turns on its own facts and Dartilov is entitled to insist on repayment of his court fee BUT this has to be taken in the context of the overall claim

Madeline13

Our flight was cancelled today due to the air strikes. The first flight we were offered was next Wednesday from an airport 3 hours away and we had no way of getting there. We have asked to be booked on the next available flight from our original booking which is next Thursday (a full week away). Am I right In thinking there is nothing we can do re.compensation? We said no to the to the first offer because we couldn't get there and there was no offer of any transport. I was initially told by the Ryanair desk at the airport that there were no flights so we had to make our own way back.

legal_magpie

I'm afraid that strikes by air traffic controllers are definitely outside the regulations. You can make a claim on your travel insurance

dartilov

Hi All

Quick and final update, email to RA solicitor was speedily received back with agreement to pay €800 and the court costs.

Have accepted and now just awaiting payment from Ryanair, once I have that I will let the court know all is sorted.

Many thanks for the help, assistance and encouragement along the way.

NoviceAngel

dartilov wrote: »

Hi All

Quick and final update, email to RA solicitor was speedily received back with agreement to pay €800 and the court costs.

Have accepted and now just awaiting payment from Ryanair, once I have that I will let the court know all is sorted.

Many thanks for the help, assistance and encouragement along the way.

Excellent news, congrats on your success :T:j:beer::j:T

Dr_Watson

dartilov,
Superb news -well done from me.
That's exactly how you stand up to these bully boys.
:j:beer::beer::j

Mark2spark

Legal Magpie.
Could you just update on this whole Calderbank thing please?
I was under the impression that they had sort of been 'phased out', in favour of 'Open Offers', that can be shown in court at 'without prejudice' hearings... like a FDR?
I'm assuming that small claims hearings are without prejudice of course. It would seem obvious that it would have to be another judge hearing it if it went to appeal.
Thanks.

legal_magpie

I will try to keep this as brief as I can.


People may not want to make open offers in case they want to retract them. An offer expressed to be "without prejudice" cannot be produced to the Court without the other side's consent (subject to certain exceptions).


To get round this difficulty a party in the case of Calderbank wrote to the other side putting forward an offer expressed as follows: "Without Prejudice save as to costs". The point being that if the other party failed to beat that offer the offer letter would be produced to the Judge who might then make an adverse costs order.
They were mainly used in matrimonial finance cases but no longer because in 99% of cases costs are not awarded. The parties make both open offers and without prejudice offers.


In civil proceedings, Part 36 applies. Under that rule a party can put forward an offer of settlement. There are very complicated costs consequences. However Calderbank offers are used much more in civil proceedings where the claim may involve more than simply money or where a party doesn't want to use Part 36 because of the costs consequences.


Part 36 doesn't apply to small claims cases so a Calderbank offer can be made. The beauty of this is that although normal costs rules don't apply to small claims cases, if someone beats their own Calderbank offer they can produce the letter to the Judge and ask him to make a costs order under the unreasonable conduct provision. This isn't easy but it can be effective.
Hope this helps