Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

glentoran99

So they will be leaving it as late as possible to apply to appeal in the hope that it won't be heard until October, giving them a few more months

Kew73

jenn1ewest1 wrote: »

decided to be quick off the mark today and have E-mailed Mr Moran regarding my case being stayed back in November and here is their latest delaying tactics reply

Many thanks for your email. As per our recent press release, Thomson Airways will be seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We now have 28 days to file this application, at which point a consideration without a hearing will be made as to whether any further appeal should be granted.

The Supreme Court remains in session until the end of July and will not return until October. It is therefore highly unlikely that our application will be considered before the recess.

As the prospect of a further appeal potential means the Court of Appeal decision is not final, we will be respectfully requesting that the Court to continue the stay of proceedings until the application has been considered.

Yours sincerely

Tony Moran
TUI UK & Ireland:mad:

I've just emailed a letter and copies of Dawson and Huzar judgements to Liverpool County Court (cc'd Thomson) asking for them to lift my stay with immediate effect.

I've mentioned that I'm aware that both Jet2 and Thomson will seek leave to appeal to the SC but until they petition the SC then the attached judgements are precedent case law. Not sure this will get anywhere but I'm not a football fan so keen to crack on .

Thanks loads for the continuing support and invaluable help on here and of course to Bott&Co, Mr Dawson and Mr Huzar! :T:T:T

richardw

From http://supremecourt.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html

"The Supreme Court:
...
- hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance
- concentrates on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance.."

Is it arguable? Don't think so, "we believe" isn't an argument, is it?
Is it of general public importance? They probably have other things much higher up the list.
Greatest public and constitutional importance? Nope.

Vauban

Although it may appear that England were beaten by Uruguay, I am thinking about appealing this to the Supreme Court (even though I've been told I can't). Therefore England have NOT been defeated and Uruguay has NOT won. I'd like the result stayed until October please.

Skid_Marks

Vauban wrote: »

Although it may appear that England were beaten by Uruguay, I am thinking about appealing this to the Supreme Court (even though I've been told I can't). Therefore England have NOT been defeated and Uruguay has NOT won. I'd like the result stayed until October please.

Hodgson should have played Benson and Clarke up front with Bott in goal!

Mark2spark

Mark2spark wrote: »

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.

I could have saved the industry a whole packet if they'd just asked me :cool:;):rotfl:

legal_magpie

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I's like to know how Thomson's preminenet QC is doing right now. Not so clever now are they Thomson.

A little unfair. Barristers can't pick and choose their clients. His job was to present the case as best he could.

Mark2spark

legal_magpie wrote: »

A little unfair. Barristers can't pick and choose their clients. His job was to present the case as best he could.

Hmmm. Thomson claim that they are applying the 2 yr limit due to advice from a pre eminent QC.

The pre eminent QC could have chosen to give alternative advice?

His wrong advice has cost thousands of people hand wringing time and patience issues that could have been avoided. Like a lot of other airlines.

No, no sympathy from me. I posted on Thomsons facebook page that the pre eminent QC should give them a refund. An entirely predictable decision really. (CoA ruling).

batman44

richardw wrote: »

From http://supremecourt.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html

"The Supreme Court:
...
- hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance
- concentrates on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance.."

Is it arguable? Don't think so, "we believe" isn't an argument, is it?
Is it of general public importance? They probably have other things much higher up the list.
Greatest public and constitutional importance? Nope.

This has already been to the EU courts on this so judgement has been passed in Wallentin & Sturgeon

The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ. However, it is ultimately for the national court to apply the resulting interpretation to the facts of any given case. Although, only courts of final appeal are bound to refer a question of EU law when one is addressed. The treaties give the ECJ the power for consistent application of EU law across the EU as a whole.

glentoran99

Monarch copying and pasting Thomson now

Good afternoon
Further to our last communication, I can confirm that Monarch Airlines are aware that Jet2 have publicly confirmed that they intend to lodge an application to the Supreme Court to seek leave to appeal the Huzar judgment. As a result, due to the uncertainty of the law which is directly related to your claim, it would be inappropriate to review your case until clarification in this respect is received.

The Supreme Court remains in session until the end of July and will not return until October. It is therefore highly unlikely that the application will be considered before the recess.

We do appreciate that this is taking longer than expected and we are sorry for any frustration this is causing. We can assure you however that we will contact you again when the decision regarding whether leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court.

Thank you again for your continued patience.


Kind Regards,

Danielle Garner
Customer Service Centre Advisor
Monarch Airlines
01582531712
EUclaim@monarch.co.uk
https://www.monarch.co.uk