Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

Skid_Marks

[QUOTE=Vauban;65836859
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.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and every time they go to a higher court it only serves to publicise a passenger's entitlement to compensation. What is it they say about an ill wind?

tonxy22

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.

Haha!! Touch of class...

My case is stayed pending the Dawson result. Time to get letter writing again!

richardw

I wonder what TUI's legal people in Germany think of all of this.

razorsedge

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.

Ah yes, you may have a better chance of getting that appeal. Afterall, it was only by a 2 to 1 majority that Uruguay won and that was after a dodgy argument pleaded in the first half went unpunished.

It is a totally different situation to the two recent 3 to nil thrashings handed out by the CoA:)

NSS

I can only assume (by seeking a further appeal to the SC) that Thomson have calculated that the legal expense is a small price to pay given that for every day that passes another potential group of claimants exceeds the 6-year limit.

My own case was stayed last year, pending the Dawson appeal, and relates to a flight in July 2008. Any passengers who were on that flight and have yet to file a claim are about to lose that right - irrespective of any SC decision.

Vauban

This is an interesting legal analysis of the Dawson case by DLA Piper: http://www.dlapiper.com/~/media/Files/Insights/Publications/2014/06/Case_update_Dawson_v_Thomson_Airways_Limited.pdf

I think it is interesting in two respects. First, that the judgement is acknowledged as "unsurprising", and second that they suggest that an airline's terms and conditions could in fact be a mechanism to insist on a two year window going forward. I have had this argument explained to me before, and it is seems credible.

But then I would hope, going forward, that no one ever leaves it beyond two years to make a claim anyway. The issues at the moment are really legacy issues caused by the airlines' efforts to stall and stall and stall. It is a familiar pattern of behaviour!

len49

Hi Vauban
I read the article and I agree about the appeal result being unsurprising. However, I thought the other point sounds like it comes from a legal practice from the corporate field currying favour from the airlines for future business with a pie in the sky notion that the law can be circumvented. We’ve had enough judgements by now at very senior levels to clarify Regulation 261.

I haven’t heard many credible arguments or actions so far from the airlines or their expensive advisers and don’t expect I’ll hear any in the near future.

Cheers

len

Vauban wrote: »

This is an interesting legal analysis of the Dawson case by DLA Piper: http://www.dlapiper.com/~/media/Files/Insights/Publications/2014/06/Case_update_Dawson_v_Thomson_Airways_Limited.pdf

Vauban

len49 wrote: »

I haven’t heard many credible arguments or actions so far from the airlines or their expensive advisers and don’t expect I’ll hear any in the near future.

The argument briefly (and bear in mind I am no lawyer) runs thus: under contract law, the limitation for a breach of that contract is the general statute of limitation or such a period as may be agreed between the parties. So if you tick that T&Cs box, you could be agreeing to a shorter time period to bring any claim. (The counter-argument would be that this constitutes an unfair clause, and the Regulation explicitly says T&Cs can't trump it.)

I once spoke to an experienced barrister who knew the Regulation and associated laws well. His personal view was that the Thomson appeal was bound to fail, and the More et al had been very clear. But he thought that the contract point might have more force to it.

All really a bit of a moot point. But it argues regardless for any potential claimant to get their claim in and not unduly hang around. Even if your claim is stayed, at least you "stop the clock" and preserve your legal rights. The airlines would love it if you were timed out or simply deterred from pursuing your claim: it's what their 'long game' is all about, after all!

JPears

"Terms and Conditions" are trumped by established case law in most cases - unfair bank charges/penalties being a recent example.
Just because I wear a T shirt stating that I am going to punch you and steal you money doesn't make it lawful.

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

"Terms and Conditions" are trumped by established case law in most cases - unfair bank charges/penalties being a recent example.
Just because I wear a T shirt stating that I am going to punch you and steal you money doesn't make it lawful.

I do love this bar room lawyer stuff - it's great fun, so long as no one actually takes us seriously.

In that vein, I offer:

"The general view taken is that parties may agree to reduce the limitation periods for breach of contract and negligence claims from those stipulated in the Limitation Act. Such an approach is very common in construction contracts. Shorter limitation periods will be subject to a reasonableness test under the legal provisions preventing unfair contract terms, however when the parties agreeing to the shorter limitation period are sophisticated commercial entities of equal bargaining strength then the courts are less likely to hold that the shorter limitation period is unreasonable."

This would suggest "my" T&Cs argument wouldn't fly. I wonder if we'll see it tested properly?