Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

richardw

So does Judge Platts make claiming easier for Litigants in Person?

Vauban

That's the $64k question, I guess. But the anecdotal evidence is beginning to suggest so. (Though I'm no lawyer!)

Given the propensity of airlines to argue that Wallentin suggests that technical faults that are not predictable, or were not picked up in maintenance, should be considered "extraordinary", the Platts' judgement does rather seem to nail that lie.

And though it is not binding in itself, it appear to command some respect amongst District Judges (and does of course cite a judgement - Wallentin - that is in effect binding on the British Courts).

I think that there is every reason for claimants to be a bit more optimistic (and there wasn't much grounds for pessimism, to be honest).

I'd be interested to know what the airlines make of this, and whether they will now change tack.

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what the airlines make of this, and whether they will now change tack.

I think that they have got to, it has always puzzled me, the gamble that Jet2 and others are playing, it must be costing them an absolute fortune to defend these Court cases with Bird & Bird.

All for what a nearly 95% lose rate ?!?!? Isn't that somewhat self defeatist.

I can only speak for myself, but I would have gone away at the beginning of my first letter to Jet2 with a free flight on my next travel with them. For me it was there half truths and lies together with their general tone of their letters that has lead to my Court action and claim.

If Jet2 really feel that His Honour Judge Platts was wrong then they should appeal, or alternatively start to pay out quickly and on a voluntary basis. If they were the first airline to do this it would make up for some of the earlier wrong doing. Ohhh and while I'm at it buy some more planes, but ones that work please:D;)

Then you wouldn't have to pay for Bird & Bird and you wouldn't have any claims.

NoviceAngel

JPears

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I think that they have got to, it has always puzzled me, the gamble that Jet2 and others are playing, it must be costing them an absolute fortune to defend these Court cases with Bird & Bird.

All for what a nearly 95% lose rate ?!?!? Isn't that somewhat self defeatist.

I can only speak for myself, but I would have gone away at the beginning of my first letter to Jet2 with a free flight on my next travel with them. For me it was there half truths and lies together with their general tone of their letters that has lead to my Court action and claim.

If Jet2 really feel that His Honour Judge Platts was wrong then they should appeal, or alternatively start to pay out quickly and on a voluntary basis. If they were the first airline to do this it would make up for some of the earlier wrong doing. Ohhh and while I'm at it buy some more planes, but ones that work please:D;)

Then you wouldn't have to pay for Bird & Bird and you wouldn't have any claims.

NoviceAngel

ooh careful novice, Jet2 don't like their old fleet being criticised.....

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

ooh careful novice, Jet2 don't like their old fleet being criticised.....

Ohh yes, didn't they argue that because they are old and well worn that they were more reliable than a 'new' fleet that might suffer from, amongst other things,battery problems?

Why on earth would they buy the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, cost them a fortune in dodgy batteries. :cool: - Yeah buy a 20+ year old plane from China, with a few thousand miles on the clock, be much more reliable - In fact, the more I think about this, I'm starting to understand this self-defeating ideology and the reasons why they instruct Bid* & Bird.

Thanks JP, you helped me answer my own question, without reading the FAQ - this time!

DrA_Harrogate

...and the result was? Written judgement in 28 days! Aaargh!

1. We were in a proper courtroom with the Judge behind her big bench an' all. Took about 2 hours. I am frazzled, and now having a wine..

2. I made quite a thing of Jet2 having old aircraft that went wrong quite a lot, with references. The Jet2 tech chap hadn't read the references and the Judge indicated she was going to ignore this. Chiz. She also seemed to like ignoring other stuff I had no 'proof' for, although I had supplied it to 2 Birds and they had not contradicted it.

3. The judge seemed very keen on the Enforcement Bodies list.

4. Jet2's Counsel was charming, and in fact approached me beforehand and said we now needed to include the Platt judgement. As I had 3 copies this was superfluous, but nice. The Jet2 guys were nice as well.

5. Locus standi was a problem. The judge havered before allowing Mrs A (who was there and indicated her consent) to join the fun. She said the others should claim themselves.

6. Counsel spent a LOT of time rubbishing Platt, clearly, and in so many words, inviting the Judge to 'overturn' it. Judge, who hadn't heard of it, took 15 mins for a read.

7. Whilst she did this, Counsel and I chatted and I opined that, were I Mrs Judge I would want to have a good think. This she did and we await with bated breath! :wall:

Vauban

Oh dear - how frustrating is that?! But I think, if she has time to reflect, your judge would be brave to disregard Platts. So consider it justice deferred: I'm sure you'll get the right result, and in time for Christmas.

NoviceAngel

Well I'm expecting something similar in my case, His Honour Judge Platts - remember considered for two weeks before making his decision.

Well done and don't be disheartened , interesting that 'locus standi' was a problem, let that be informative to others. inc. myself ouch!

Thanks for the update open the Chardonnay and enjoy your evening.

Thanks

NoviceAngel

JPears

Unbelievable! How did counsel rubbish Platt?
Judges don't seem to appeciate that it is very difficult for an LIP to actually get any "proof". And should this level of evidence reallly be required at Small Claims level, given the an overiding perrogative is one of "common sense"
Had Judge read Platt before they became so interested in the spurious (and now discredited) NEB list?

It would appear that some Judges are having an opinion before they enter the hearing.
Well fingers crossed for you.

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

your judge would be brave to disregard Platts.

That is "extraordinarily" polite! "Brave" is not the word I'd have chosen. (I suspect it wasn't your first choice either!)