Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

Vauban

Nah, I don't think so, Sir G. The conclusion of the European Court was very clear about the right of EU citizens to bring their compensation claims before a national court if required. The rest is mere sophistry (to put it politely).

If you were right, why does neither the CAA, the courts nor the airlines agree with you?

SirGimpy

You may not think so, but I note that you have not even attempted to respond to any of the points I have made, or the fundamental issue that the European Court's view on whether or not passengers can bring claims before national courts is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not English law permits such claims (quite rightly, because there is no answer to these points). The European Court is only supreme in relation to issues of European law, which the interpretation of the Civil Aviation Regulations is not.

I'm not sure what you mean by the courts disagreeing with me. It's quite clear that the Court of Appeal agrees with me. I am not privy to the basis of any view taken by the CAA, or what legal advice they have or have not taken on the issue. The fact that the airlines rarely argue this point any more does not mean that they regard it as wrong; there are other forces at work (the CAA being one of them) and other considerations. The point is still argued (and indeed successfully) from time to time.

Vauban

Okay. I think this exchange has probably reached its conclusion and folk can draw their own conclusions from it. I'm grateful for the engagement; it's good to have it.

Here are some Lord Vauban facts:

1) The ECJ, which has primacy in general terms over the UK courts, has ruled that individuals have the right to sue an airline in their national court if they fail to pay the passenger the compensation payable under Regulation 261/04,

2) The CAA, as the UK's NEB agrees with this;

3) I am aware of no instances when English courts have said that Graham means that individuals cannot sue for the specific compensation stipulated.

Let me know if any of these three points isn't right.

howticklediam

More opinion from http://eutopialaw.com/2013/02/04/case-c-1211-denise-mcdonagh-v-ryanair-volcanic-ash-and-super-extraordinary-circumstances/:

A second issue arises from the Council’s submission disputing the admissibility of Ms McDonagh’s claim by suggesting that individual passengers lacked standing to challenge carriers’ compliance with Articles 5 and 9 of the Regulation before domestic courts as a result of the provision for national enforcement bodies in Article 16 of the Regulation. The Court’s unequivocal rejection of this argument will require a serious rethink in the UK courts, which have increasingly become sympathetic to arguments against individual claims. In Graham v Thomas Cook [2012] EWCA Civ 1355, for example, Toulson LJ suggested that the Judge below had been ‘right to hold that breach of [Regulation 261/2004 obligations] does not give rise to a civil action for damages.’ It is suggested, with respect, that this position is no longer tenable.

Neither of these cases discuss 261 Article 7. So if the Graham judgment is binding in the UK with respect to bringing civil action for damages for breach of Article 8 it would seem to me that it is misrepresented in a claim for compensation under Article 7 whether or not it is trumped by the Mcdonagh ruling.

SirGimpy

Vauban wrote: »

Here are some Lord Vauban facts:

1) The ECJ, which has primacy in general terms over the UK courts, has ruled that individuals have the right to sue an airline in their national court if they fail to pay the passenger the compensation payable under Regulation 261/04,

2) The CAA, as the UK's NEB agrees with this;

3) I am aware of no instances when English courts have said that Graham means that individuals cannot sue for the specific compensation stipulated.

Let me know if any of these three points isn't right.

Point 1 is wrong for two reasons. First, the CJEU does not have primacy 'in general terms' over the UK courts. It has primacy only in relation to issues of European law. Thankfully, English law is still largely unaffected by European law (human rights issues excluded) and so the CJEU is rarely of any significance. Secondly, you have overstated the scope of the ruling in McDonagh. The court said only that Article 16 did not prevent claims for damages in domestic courts. In other words, it rejected one specific argument concerning the interpretation of Article 16.

Point 2 may well be correct, but the CAA's view is irrelevant. They are not legally trained.

As for point 3, I am perfectly prepared to accept that you are not aware of any such cases. I, on the other hand, am aware of such cases.

howticklediam wrote: »

Neither of these cases discuss 261 Article 7. So if the Graham judgment is binding in the UK with respect to bringing civil action for damages for breach of Article 8 it would seem to me that it is misrepresented in a claim for compensation under Article 7 whether or not it is trumped by the Mcdonagh ruling.

This is is a perfectly reasonable point to make. It is very much open to debate to what extent Graham v Thomas Cook affects claims brought under Article 7 rather than Article 8. The reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal does, however, logically apply to a claim under Article 7 as much as a claim under Article 8. As I have said before, it hardly matters because the airlines don't argue this point anymore.

howticklediam

How and when does one provide a skeleton argument?

Is it advisable to do so?

111KAB

howticklediam wrote: »

How and when does one provide a skeleton argument?

Is it advisable to do so?

In reverse order .... in my opinion definitely.


Skeleton = bare bones (ie outline with salient points only say single page or max 2 pages) presented to Judge (possibly via clerk) and 'other side' on day of hearing.

howticklediam

Many thanks.

Clankers

Hi

Apologies if this has been asked before.
I've submitted a claim through Resolver with Jet2 about a 5 hour delay back in 2010. I've received a reply from Jet2 this morning telling me to put the claim in writing and to include the Booking Reference and also a copy of the Booking Confirmation or Boarding Pass otherwise they will be unable to consider my correspondence.

As the flight was back in 2010, I no longer have that information. Will I be able to pursue my claim?

111KAB

Clankers - read Vauban's Guide - beware that Jet2 may be delaying to push you beyond 6 years.