Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Looks like they are all in conspiracy together with their same stock replies.

They shouldn't even be allowed to appeal the appeal. No layer should exist above where they are now. They are simply abusing the legal system now.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

So monarch apologise for the frustration do they?

Why do I feel they aren't being strictly honest there?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I am not quite sure what is going on here. Thomson say they are seeking leave to appeal the CoA decision yet this article says they have been refused leave to appeal. So if they have been refused leave to appeal how can they appeal? CONFUSED.COM

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/travel-food-and-lifestyle/travel/30507/airline-court-ruling-paves-way-4-billion-compensation-claims

Skid_Marks

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I am not quite sure what is going on here. Thomson say they are seeking leave to appeal the CoA decision yet this article says they have been refused leave to appeal. So if they have been refused leave to appeal how can they appeal?

In simple terms there are 2 routes to the Supreme Court......the Court of Appeal closed route 1 but Thomson can still request an appeal down route 2, although this is not guaranteed.

Exactly the same with Jet2 v Huzar.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I would have hoped/thought that if the CoA closed route 1 then it is exceptionally hard to go via route 2. I mean what is their appeal? According to the judgment at the CoA the argument they presented was the same on as at Cambridge originally.

They should be done for abusing the legal system now.

Skid_Marks

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I would have hoped/thought that if the CoA closed route 1 then it is exceptionally hard to go via route 2.

Hopefully, that may well prove to be the case.......let's just wait and see.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Maybe the Supreme court will think

"Ohh jeez not them again whinging on about the Montreal Convention, let's just F them off and say tough cookies dudes you cant go no further".

JPears

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

So monarch apologise for the frustration do they?

Why do I feel they aren't being strictly honest there?

Unfortunately one cannot put sincere and (insert any name) airline in the same sentance - its a contradiction in terms...

Vauban

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I would have hoped/thought that if the CoA closed route 1 then it is exceptionally hard to go via route 2. I mean what is their appeal? According to the judgment at the CoA the argument they presented was the same on as at Cambridge originally. They should be done for abusing the legal system now.

Frustrating though it is, it's not illegitimate to appeal to the higher court after the current court refuses leave to appeal. But I think you are right that it may be quite difficult to persuade the Supreme Court to take the case. In essence, you need to have an arguable leal point of public interest. I'm not sure, given the clear direction of the court, that it is particularly arguable. But we shall see ...

To all those whose cases depend upon the 2/6 year point though, I think your money is pretty safe.

Thomson may prevaricate and rail, Canute-like, against the incoming tide. But all I say is: stop messing about Thomson, and look down; your feet are already wet.

JPears

Lord Prof Sir Vauban has another feather to his cap - "comic wit of the week"
Its a funny Friday folks!