Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

JPears

Of course Lord prof, oh high one. My example was specious to say the least

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Of course Lord prof, oh high one. My example was specious to say the least

Stop it, you naughty boy!

Haven't you got a claim to 'resurrect'?

JPears

Just waiting post Huzar and Dawson appeals, specious though they are....

Degsy41

Hi,

I have looked through this thread and could not find the answer.

Thomson state the Montreal Convention's time limit of 2 years. But is this 2 year limit for the start of any communication regarding a claim, such as sending a letter to the airline, or is this a 2 year limit to bring a court case?

degsy

Vauban

Degsy41 wrote: »

Hi,

I have looked through this thread and could not find the answer.

Thomson state the Montreal Convention's time limit of 2 years. But is this 2 year limit for the start of any communication regarding a claim, such as sending a letter to the airline, or is this a 2 year limit to bring a court case?

degsy

Court case; writing pretty letters doesn't count for nowt. (But it's 6 years not 2, as confirmed by Court of Appeal.)

David_e

Degsy41 wrote: »

I have looked through this thread and could not find the answer.

It is there in black and white, and this is one of the shorter threads.

Maybe try a no win no fee firm.

Kew73

Kew73 wrote: »

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

Followed up with a phone call to Liverpool CC last Thursday and was told that the file had been referred to the DJ.

Today I received the response - A General Form of Judgement or Order stating 'Upon considering the court file and upon the court having being informed that the Defendant is seeking permission to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal in Jet2.com Limited v Ronald Huzar to the Supreme Court...the stay previously imposed is extended until further order...by no later than 14 days following the delivery of judgement of the Supreme Court in respect of the above application for permission to appeal, or (if such application is granted) the judgement of the Supreme Court...the Defendant shall write to this Court seeking further and consequential directions'.

Fully expected this given the experiences of others on here but a couple of things seem odd;
1) Perhaps it's just the way it's worded but the Defendant in my case is Thomson, not Jet2. Surely Thomson isn't seeking permission to appeal?!
2) No mention of the Dawson case. Is this significant?

Not a peep from Thomson, no surprises there

JPears

Kew73 wrote: »

Followed up with a phone call to Liverpool CC last Thursday and was told that the file had been referred to the DJ.

Today I received the response - A General Form of Judgement or Order stating 'Upon considering the court file and upon the court having being informed that the Defendant is seeking permission to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal in Jet2.com Limited v Ronald Huzar to the Supreme Court...the stay previously imposed is extended until further order...by no later than 14 days following the delivery of judgement of the Supreme Court in respect of the above application for permission to appeal, or (if such application is granted) the judgement of the Supreme Court...the Defendant shall write to this Court seeking further and consequential directions'.

Fully expected this given the experiences of others on here but a couple of things seem odd;
1) Perhaps it's just the way it's worded but the Defendant in my case is Thomson, not Jet2. Surely Thomson isn't seeking permission to appeal?!
2) No mention of the Dawson case. Is this significant?

Not a peep from Thomson, no surprises there

Kew I think the defendant refers to the defendant in your case, not the appeal case.
Is Dawson relevant to your case? Have Thomson sought a stay based on Dawson or just Huzar?

Kew73

JPears wrote: »

Kew I think the defendant refers to the defendant in your case, not the appeal case.
Is Dawson relevant to your case? Have Thomson sought a stay based on Dawson or just Huzar?

Yes, my claim is from Oct'09. The original stay was for both but the recent extension appears to be just for Huzar. Find it staggering that the Courts are staying 1000s of cases on the basis of 'ifs' and 'buts' rather than the law.

glentoran99

its been mentioned on the huzar thread that jet 2 have indeed lodged their appeal, Have thomson?