Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

JPears

Either way, its all very excitng.
Dawson has less of an impact since the effect of the 2 year rule will fade out to a negliable amount over time, as long as consumers get their claims in early enough. If airines loose that could be more of an impact, but far less so than Huzar. But do I care? Hell no;)

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Either way, its all very excitng.
Dawson has less of an impact since the effect of the 2 year rule will fade out to a negliable amount over time, as long as consumers get their claims in early enough. If airines loose that could be more of an impact, but far less so than Huzar. But do I care? Hell no;)

I agree JP: Dawson is largely, or should be, a legacy issue - caused principally by the airlines appealing everything in the European Court so claims were effectively stayed (sound familiar, anyone?). Once we have clarity either way, there should be no good reason why people need to wait for 6 years before bringing a claim.

razorsedge

Vauban wrote: »

I agree JP: Dawson is largely, or should be, a legacy issue - caused principally by the airlines appealing everything in the European Court so claims were effectively stayed (sound familiar, anyone?). Once we have clarity either way, there should be no good reason why people need to wait for 6 years before bringing a claim.

Except that, every now and then, something gets into the news (Eg only earlier this month Huzar) and it jogs peoples memories of long lost flights.......

Vauban

razorsedge wrote: »

Except that, every now and then, something gets into the news (Eg only earlier this month Huzar) and it jogs peoples memories of long lost flights.......

Yes I suppose. But awareness of the Regulation is gradually increasing, so I still think it's a diminishing return. Many of the claims in the system are a product of the legal hiatus that the Sturgeon and Nelson/Tui cases created - which in turn affected general awareness of the Regulation.

Vauban

What I am going to write will not be popular.

But if Thomson win tomorrow I will doff my cap to their legal Counsel. When they began this two-year business, no one gave Thomson the time of day: the CAA disagreed and other airlines ignored the tactic (paying claims more than two years out). The contrast with Huzar could not have been greater.

But there is a serious and impressive legal argument that underpins Thomson's position. And - to my non-legal eye - the case looks very finely balanced. Given Thomson have been out on an apparently eccentric limb on this, it's been a really good performance by their legal representatives to get to this stage.

I know people will be disappointed tomorrow if Thomson win - especially if your claim combusts as a result. But you won't be half as disappointed as all those airlines who paid out hundreds of thousands, thinking Thomson's argument was for the birds.

It's nothing if not fascinating drama.

(I told you you wouldn't like this post.)

Mark2spark

I do

I think it'll go Mr Dawsons way.
Yes, I accept that there is a good technical argument against (Sidhu), but the spirit of the Regulation, as confirmed in More and others, is greater passenger protection in the instance of inconvenience when delayed/cancelled, so 261 becomes an inconvenience payment, as in statutory, and not a claim under MC for damages.

Skid_Marks

Vauban wrote: »

I will doff my cap to their legal Counsel.

Ah!......so you have a cap as well as a nice hat. Is the cap for when you fly Jet2?

Mark2spark

Sort of like they should hand out compensation cheques at the same time as handing out meal vouchers.

len49

Can't believe Vauban & Centipede have lost their bottle and jumped ship. Less than 12 hours to go and nothing has changed since the More judgement.

For as long as I can remember the blog has been bullish and emphasised 6 year statute of limitation in England & Wales and 5 years in Scotland. Don't let a fancy barrister pull the wool over your eyes. I'm sure the learned Judges didn't.

Keep the faith.

len

Vauban wrote: »

What I am going to write will not be popular.

But if Thomson win tomorrow I will doff my cap to their legal Counsel. When they began this two-year business, no one gave Thomson the time of day: the CAA disagreed and other airlines ignored the tactic (paying claims more than two years out). The contrast with Huzar could not have been greater.

Vauban

len49 wrote: »

Can't believe Vauban & Centipede have lost their bottle and jumped ship. Less than 12 hours to go and nothing has changed since the More judgement.

For as long as I can remember the blog has been bullish and emphasised 6 year statute of limitation in England & Wales and 5 years in Scotland. Don't let a fancy barrister pull the wool over your eyes. I'm sure the learned Judges didn't.

Keep the faith.

len

To be clear Len, I have said I think Dawson will prevail. But it will be a more finely balanced judgement than most reckon, I bet.

Vauban wrote: »

What I am going to write will not be popular.

But if Thomson win tomorrow I will doff my cap to their legal Counsel. When they began this two-year business, no one gave Thomson the time of day: the CAA disagreed and other airlines ignored the tactic (paying claims more than two years out). The contrast with Huzar could not have been greater.