Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

NoviceAngel

mrtonygibson wrote: »

I have today received a letter from the district judge at Mansfield CC refusing the "stay" requested by 2 birds in light of "paragraph (2) of the order of the supreme court in cases of Jet2.com v Huzar and Thomson Airways v Dawson". Court date 18th Feb at Mansfield CC. Looks like this judge is going to enforce the SC decision if I read this correctly.

JPears wrote: »

Fantastic news. Hopefully the Judge will also ask Jet2 why their defence should not be struck out at this stage. It is interesting that your date is just after the "Bott Case" in Liverpool, Feb 15th. I wonder if the judge is being canny, taking lead from the result of that case?

Excellent news Tony :j:T:j

Yes it cannot be more than a coincidence ~ I'm surprised that Tonys case wasn't transfered to Liverpool like DrA.

It really goes to show the inconsistencies in our legal system.

But if I'm reading this right that DJ has in fact ruled on the Liverpool case, before Liverpool ?!? Because he has refused a further 'stay' pending Van der Lans, so what's the DJ going to do if J2 (in the unlikley event that they succeed in Liverpool) say, 'well I'm now going to stay the case after just lifting it because of the Liverpool case'
bizarre to say the least!

I really don't think the Mansfield DJ knows what a can of worms he/she has just opened.


Cheers,

NoviceAngel

mrtonygibson

I thought I saw on a previous post the Bott case was the 25th? The 15th is a Sunday.

NoviceAngel

mrtonygibson wrote: »

Are you sure the Bott case is on 15th? I thought I saw on a previous post it was the 25th.

You are quite correct it is in on the 25th I spotted that earlier, after posting, when I was researching my post for the Flybe thread.....

I suspect a typo!


Cheers,

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel

Tyzap wrote: »

Jet2/Ryanair/Flybe/Wizzair
All four of these airlines are asking for cases to be put on hold again pending a Dutch case – Van der Lans. There is a case due to be heard at Liverpool County Court on 25th February 2015 (Allen V Jet2.com) which will decide whether or not the airlines can do this. It is likely that all other cases will follow the decision made in this case.

So I guess yours now becomes the TEST case!!! Make way for the Gibson thread !?!

No pressure there then :beer::eek:

I'm actually serious, start your own thread, tell us from the beginning how you ended up at this point and we'll all follow your story. Although your case would not be binding upon Liverpool, it would be persuasive if the Judge rules in your favour.

EDIT - I'm sure members that have connections with Bott will ensure that they are aware of your case as the outcome may be relevant to the Allen case

JPears

Oops, sorry wrong date, my bad

mrtonygibson

I wonder if Botts barristers want to warm their hands on my case free of charge? In my honest opinion the reason for the judge refusing the stay should be the only defence needed. He or she must be aware of the ducking and diving being done by the various airlines and in particular the blatant disregard for the Supreme Court judgement. Lets hope this will put an end to this saga once and for all.

Vauban

I don't think you case can be a "test" because it is being dealt with at a County Court level. This sets no precedents - even the most senior judges on the "circuit" are only "persuasive".

So I'm not sure I understand why the Liverpool case will be so significant. I will do a little digging. But of course the broader point is that the more courts who refuse a stay, the more that becomes the norm. (That said, I've read on here of at least one case where the Judge has agreed a stay on the basis of the Dutch case - though it's not clear the Claimant actually did anything to dissuade the Court.)

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Although your case would not be binding upon Liverpool, it would be persuasive if the Judge rules in your favour.

Vauban wrote: »

I don't think you case can be a "test" because it is being dealt with at a County Court level. This sets no precedents - even the most senior judges on the "circuit" are only "persuasive".

So I'm not sure I understand why the Liverpool case will be so significant. I will do a little digging.

I was hoping that nobody would pick up on my thoughts, or think in the same way, but now we have both mentioned it it might as well be out there.

Forgetting the 'Gibson' case, why would one case brought by Botts, namely the Allen case on the 25th February 2015 in Liverpool then be binding on all other cases that Bott or a LiP bring?

We all know that this is a County Court Case and although could be argued as persuasive it is not binding on all other Courts, so hopefully you can see where this is going ~ surely not another Huzar case ? up and up to get another SC decision ?

Barmy, JP touched on this before when he created another thread, questioning all this.....

Digging is needed

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel

After digging just around the forum and looking closely to Monarchs approach, the airlines seem to be clumping claims into a specific flight, so the arguments from the defendant and the claimant would be identical in each case, so all claims relating to a specific flight can be heard at once.

Even that approach means a 'test' case for every flight...?

And even if you went with the collective approach let's say that you commence legal action after your collective case has been heard in Liverpool six months prior to your case, in law, would your case be automatically be upheld ?

Since its a County Court, wouldn't it warrant a fresh hearing?

The more I look into this the more confused I become, don't they say things always look clearer in the morning so nighty night

Tyzap

mrtonygibson wrote: »

I wonder if Botts barristers want to warm their hands on my case free of charge? In my honest opinion the reason for the judge refusing the stay should be the only defence needed. He or she must be aware of the ducking and diving being done by the various airlines and in particular the blatant disregard for the Supreme Court judgement. Lets hope this will put an end to this saga once and for all.

Hi Tony,

Your case raises some interesting points.

Please check your PM's.