Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

socrates1882

Both personally and professionally I think it's appalling that the CAA have done nothing to clarify this point for years.

The section of the CAA site about their role proudly proclaims their number 1 priority to be "Protecting the consumer". Here is a classic example of them singularly failing to do so.

JPears

But then they have no legal power to do so, even if they were so minded.
As we are all so keen and correct to point out when they brandish the specious NEB "guidelines" BS

razorsedge

dxc_chappie wrote: »

[Moved from Huzar appeal thread]



Yes, but EU law also says definitively that claims under EC 261 are not damages and fall outside of the MC. This is also acknowledged in the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stott V Thomas Cook and is therefore also English law.

Since EC 261 claims are neither damages or fall under the MC then Sidhu should not apply and the appeal should fail.

But the law is, as they say, a long-eared, slow, patient, sure-footed domesticated mammal, Equus asinus, related to the horse.

Sorry dxc_chappie, I seem to have my thick head on today. I was under the impression that poor Mr Stott lost his appeal, so which paras of the Judgement state 'that claims under EC 261 are not damages and fall outside of the MC'?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

When do people think we will hear a result of the Dawson hearing. We have a case currently stayed pending an outcome. The stay was end dated for a year from the small claims hearing to later this year. There is a date on the form stayed until xx/xx/xx.

I am concerned that if this trips on much longer the end date will expire. How do we go about extending this date? It's been coming up three weeks since the hearing.

dxc_chappie

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

When do people think we will hear a result of the Dawson hearing. We have a case currently stayed pending an outcome. The stay was end dated for a year from the small claims hearing to later this year. There is a date on the form stayed until xx/xx/xx.

I am concerned that if this trips on much longer the end date will expire. How do we go about extending this date? It's been coming up three weeks since the hearing.

My money's on 3-4 months from now. I'd suggest just write to the court (copy to Thomson) about a week before the end date requesting an extension or further stay as the judgment is still pending.

socrates1882

Judgment to be handed down at 10am on Thursday.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Oh goody! Not long now until all becomes clear. My bet is on 2 years being upheld as the limit, but I am frequently wrong and not a gambler....

My sense is that the arguments were much tougher than in the case of Huzar (where I always thought Wallentin was basically clear enough). Dawson all hangs on quite esoteric threads.

Partly to be contrary, I will say I think Dawson will be upheld. But also because I think it would look odd for the UK's limitation period to be so our of kilter with other European countries (who are also signatories to the MC).

But we shall see ...

batman44

I am sure if it goes against Thomson they will appeal to the Supreme Court!

Wow that means a lot of stays will be lifted end of this week and next, very busy time for them me thinks.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Re other EU States, surely this depends on whether their national law has enshrined the MC as the law under which claims for air travel should be heard.

Yes. But does Sidhu (or whatever it's called) really provide the definitive, in perpetuity ruling on all aspects of air travel - or just those that come under the purview of the MC?

Oh, I don't know ... Ask me on Thursday.

glentoran99

Surely the appeal has to fail
was already tested and clarified by the ECJ Mor! v KLM

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-11/cp120150en.pdf