Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

David_e

bustyg wrote: »

Can you help me please?
I recently had an 18hr delay with jet2 and now they are saying I am not entitled to compensation as it was classed as extraordinary circumstances. The problem was we had 2 faults with the aircraft the first was fixed then when we thought we were ready to take off they found a fuel leak,can they be right and I am entitled to nothing?

As 111KAB said when you posted this elsewhere:

"if you read Jet2 thread you will find your answers there - but in a nutshell > they are trying it on .... again."

You thanked him so I assume you read his reply.

JPears

DrA_Harrogate wrote: »

Good afternoon fellow lateflyers.

Well, tomorrow it's little old me v Jet2 and lo! I have Judge Platt's full documentation to hand. I had half-expected a call but No. Mysteriously, the local media have expressed an interest...

I loved the bit about bullying! I shall print off some copies in case the learned Judge has missed it.

Wish us luck (Mrs A will be along too) :cool:

Oh to be a fly on the wall. Let us know when we can raise a glass to you...

richardw

Does Judge Platts mean exceptional, when he says exceptional?

Vauban

"You say extraordinary, I say exceptional. Let's call the whole thing off!"

richardw

Call me pedantic, but the reg says "extraordinary", so should the Judge say "extraordinary", or does he mean "exceptional"?

Does the Judge mean what they say?

David_e

richardw wrote: »

Does Judge Platts mean exceptional, when he says exceptional?

I did a quick search on the pdf and he mentions it twice - in para 8 which refers to "the wrong test of 'exceptional cicrcumstances'" and in para 13 where part of the Wallentin ruling is reproduced, para 26 of that refers to "covered by those exceptional circumstances". I suspect that in para 8 he did mean extraodinary - unless he was directly quoting what the appellant had written. That seems unlikely as he was represented.

In the circumstances, specifically that it doesn't feature in the judge's decision (para's 18 onwards), I would hope it was not a concern. De minimis non curat lex?

Vauban

I agree: Wallentin uses "exceptional" in para 26, when the judgement clearly meant "extraordinary". I think the context of that, as in Platt, make the meaning very clear.

richardw

David_e wrote: »

...De minimis non curat lex?

Yes, but it's untidy.

At university we were always criticised if we didn't use the precise language from standard contract forms, but that was a while ago!

David_e

richardw wrote: »

Yes, but it's untidy.

It's very poor indeed but, in my uninformed view, legally inconsequential - thankfully. However the airlines may seek to grasp whatever straws they can now!

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

It's very poor indeed but, in my uninformed view, legally inconsequential - thankfully. However the airlines may seek to grasp whatever straws they can now!

Isn't it drowning men that grasp at straws ...;)