Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

SirGimpy

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Luten,
That's rubbish from RA.
See here:-

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l16028

You are an habitant of the UK, and RA are based in Ireland so your claim is one of a cross border nature that the ESCP is designed for.
There is nothing within this that says you can only bring a claim in the country that any such reason to bring the claim occurred. Nothing at all.
Ask RA to adduce evidence to support their claim that this is the case, and quote the evidence above as part of your answer.
Good luck and keep going.

The ESCP has nothing to do with jurisdiction. It is simply a procedural mechanism for claims. The Court still needs to have jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to the usual jurisdictional rules.

Dr_Watson

SirGimpy wrote: »

The ESCP has nothing to do with jurisdiction. It is simply a procedural mechanism for claims. The Court still needs to have jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to the usual jurisdictional rules.

SirGimpy,
So i'll refer to my post above. Luten wants to bring a claim against RA, the claim is one of a cross border nature which ESCP is designed to accomodate. The courts in the UK have jurisdiction over the claim because of the nature of the claim- a cross border claim between a habitant in the UK and a business in Ireland.

SirGimpy

Dr_Watson wrote: »

The courts in the UK have jurisdiction over the claim because of the nature of the claim- a cross border claim between a habitant in the UK and a business in Ireland.

Not exactly the most sophisticated analysis of the Brussels Regulation jurisdictional regime. The default position is that where the defendant is domiciled in a Member State, they must be sued in that state. There are special rules for consumer contracts, but a claim under Regulation 261/2004 is not a contractual claim. By your logic (which is wrong), the English courts would have jurisdiction over any cross-border dispute involving an English entity. They do not.

Vauban

SirGimpy wrote: »

Not exactly the most sophisticated analysis of the Brussels Regulation jurisdictional regime. The default position is that where the defendant is domiciled in a Member State, they must be sued in that state. There are special rules for consumer contracts, but a claim under Regulation 261/2004 is not a contractual claim. By your logic (which is wrong), the English courts would have jurisdiction over any cross-border dispute involving an English entity. They do not.

Sir Gimpy - do try to rein in the sarcasm. You are coming across as neither helpful nor smart. You seem far more focused on scoring obtuse points (which help no one) rather than being of any practical assistance to people here. Please stop it.

Dr_Watson

Vauban
A bit of sarcasm isn't going to bother me, I'm from Yorkshire, sticks and stones and all that my friend!

SirGimpy
No it wasn't the most sophisticated analysis of any regulation whatsoever, just simple plain talking designed to help a fellow forum user with a claim from RA that they are trying to deal with.

Yes ESCP has limitations as to the value and type of case that it can be used for, but in this case is legitimate as per its scope and I have used it before in similar cases to the one in previous posts.

I save 'sophisticated analysis' of regulatory law, current case law and regulation when building skeleton arguments for my litigation 'friends'.

To date I have won 26 out of 26 of these, I have seen varied claims of 'extraordinary circumstance' presented by RA in their answer(s) to court which I'm sure is designed to scare the wits out of litigants.
These have included; claims of various technical faults, claims of airport closure, claims of adverse meteorological conditions, claims of birdstrike and claims that the 'claim' cannot be brought to the courts using ESCP along with ridiculous amounts of cost to RA should the litigant lose.
I have many more claims currently going through the courts, and some are being settled post KLM v VDL, others I have waiting for that 'first claim on that flight' to win before they would like to proceed with their claim.
What do I get from this? Nothing....I've had the odd drink or too, flowers for Mrs W, and some kind donations to my kids local football team and really there is no need, I just enjoy beating RA.

I think what I'm trying to say is, is that i know a little bit about RA, ESCP and this whole bloody regulation, as it is.....
So- that's my cards on the table, and if you like a little sarcasm.....now let's see your bloody cards.

Vauban

I think the only card Sir Gimpy gets is a "yellow card" ...

safsnowball

28 posts from SirGimpy and all of them designed to deter rightful claimants - I smell a rat.

Justice13075

You know the old saying if it looks like a rat, walks like a rat and smells like a rat then it's a Rat

Luten

Regarding what SirGimpy said, I would be wary to dismiss someone's comment just because of the tone of it. I'd be happy if it wasn't so, but from what I read, he has posted nothing factually wrong.

I've skimped over the ESCP regulation (can't post link as a new user) and it mentions jurisdiction several times (for example "The claim form should be submitted only to a court or tribunal that has jurisdiction") without clarifying how do I find out which court has jurisdiction. If I'm always able to sue a company in my country of residence, why not just say so?!

Maybe I'm too cautious, but the guide to ESCP (can't post link as a new user)] specifically says that one of the "Options for the response to the claim" is "challenging the jurisdiction of the court without disputing the substance" and it is obvious that Ryanair will do that in my case. Dr Watson, maybe all the cases you won were for flights to or from the UK?

I'd feel much more comfortable if I found a clear and unambiguous regulation on which court has jurisdiction in my case. So far everything I've found does not apply to me (I can only be sued in my country of residence, doesn't say anything about me suing someone; consumers can sue companies in their country or residence but that does not apply to contract of transport… (can't post link as a new user)). This is quite frustrating!

Justice13075

Dr Watson has given you his opinion. You can ignore it if you wish I for one would follow it but it's down to you. Good luck with which ever route you take.