Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

NoviceAngel

*** EDIT *** speedy of the mark there 111KAB

Hi Jazzberry, have a read of Vaubans guide and check out flight stats.

If flight stats says over three hours, print the page and send it to them with an NBA.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Justice13075

Have you tried flight stats. or post you flight no, day and date and someone will have a look for you

NoviceAngel

We are all helpful today, could even put your flight details into Botts search engine, see if they say you have a valid claim!

SirGimpy

NoviceAngel wrote: »

That's a standard and very old defence that I thought J2 had all but given up on, saying that claims were for damages and yours isn't it is for compensation under EC261. You can clarify that in your claim if need be, but I wouldn't even give that argument anymore than the minimum of lip service.

Any DJ would through their argument out, like you said you only have to refer to any of the big cases, like Huzar.

How many more times, do J2 need to be told! :mad:

PS just to add damages are not a fixed amount and are normally claimed under personal injury claims. Whereas Compensation under EC261 is a fixed amount as stipulated by the EU law.

That's not what the Graham v Thomas Cook argument is about at all. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that although the Regulation itself provides for the payment of compensation, it is necessary to look at how the Regulation has been enacted in England. It then went on to hold that the English legal instruments which give effect to the Regulation do not create a cause of action which an individual can invoke in court in this country.

Most airlines do not argue the Graham v Thomas Cook point anymore because the case concerned a claim under Article 8 rather than Article 7. So far as I am aware, Jet2 do not rely on this argument any more. They used to argue (quite correctly) that the reasoning which the Court of Appeal adopted to dismiss the claim under Article 8 applies equally to a claim under Article 7, so logically an individual does not have a cause of action to bring a claim under Article 7 either.

As for why there are cases like Huzar, which reached the Court of Appeal concerning a claim for Article 7 without anyone ever mentioning Graham v Thomas Cook, the simple answer is that the airline in those cases did not argue this issue. The court will only make a decision based on the arguments which are advanced before it in a particular case. Graham v Thomas Cook has never been overruled, it has simply not been considered since.

howticklediam

Thank you SirGimpy for that reasoned reply.

One has to ask, if j2 could have correctly applied this argument in Huzar, then why didn't they when so much was at stake?

I wonder if this was in the defence against Mr Huzar.

And similarly, why didn't they test it in their dealings with the CAA who made them sign a legal undertaking to pay compensation; again so much at stake that it was worth a punt, more so than the two-year time-bar that they gave up on eventually.

Vauban

I think this is a weak and tired argument. Why if an airline refuses to accord you your statutory rights should you not be able to sue them? I can see no compelling reason why not. And the fact that the airlines didn't try this on in the more senior courts, when they were throwing a number of arguments into the mix, is rather telling.

Justice13075

So there, SirGimpy

NoviceAngel

SirGimpy wrote: »

That's not what the Graham v Thomas Cook argument is about at all.

To be fair, your correct in that and I admit that I really don't know the Graham case at all well.

What I am sure of though, that everyone that has had dealings with 2birds will know that this particular defence argument has been used over and over again, it's all standard a bit like the locus standi they always throw in.I remember reading from legal magpie that this multiple point objection technique is commonly used in law, if objection number 1 doesn't work we'll try 2 and so on. What I would also say is that reading through all the early Jet2 wins on here, I've never ever found a case, where the 'damages' defence has succeeded. It's different though with interest, some airlines have had success with the argument, saying that it's compensation and not damages therefore you're not entitled to interest. They can't have it both ways!

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel

Justice13075 wrote: »

So there, SirGimpy

:rotfl:All opinions are welcome :cool:

howticklediam

NoviceAngel wrote: »

.....I remember reading from legal magpie that this multiple point objection technique is commonly used in law, if objection number 1 doesn't work we'll try 2 and so on.... NoviceAngel

It is the last paragraph of a long multi-faceted defence.