Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

dxc_chappie

Centipede100 wrote: »

Transcripts may or may not be available depending whether the claimants involved would like to share these details.

I forgot to include: I enquired about obtaining transcripts of CC cases for "research" purposes but was told I needed to have:

• the claim number
• the hearing date
• the name of the judge
• the county court where it was heard

as the court do not provide a search facility.

Furthermore, I was told in no uncertain terms that as I had no direct involvement I would need to fill in form N244 justifying why I need the transcripts which would then need to be approved by a DJ. Only then could transcripts be obtained (with the appropriate fee).

So much for public service transparency!

jimcbob

dxc_chappie wrote: »

I forgot to include: I enquired about obtaining transcripts of CC cases for "research" purposes but was told I needed to have:

• the claim number
• the hearing date
• the name of the judge
• the county court where it was heard

as the court do not provide a search facility.

Furthermore, I was told in no uncertain terms that as I had no direct involvement I would need to fill in form N244 justifying why I need the transcripts which would then need to be approved by a DJ. Only then could transcripts be obtained (with the appropriate fee).

So much for public service transparency!

This is not true. You are entitled, as of right, to any judgment on file: CPR, rule 5.4C(1):

(1) The general rule is that a person who is not a party to proceedings may obtain from the court records a copy of—
(a) a statement of case, but not any documents filed with or attached to the statement of case, or intended by the party whose statement it is to be served with it;
(b) a judgment or order given or made in public (whether made at a hearing or without a hearing),subject to paragraph (1B).

You do not need to make an application because permission is not required, hence rule 5.4D(1)(b) applies:

(1) A person wishing to obtain a copy of a document under rule 5.4B or rule 5.4C must pay any prescribed fee and—
(a) if the court's permission is required, file an application notice in accordance with Part 23; or
(b) if permission is not required, file a written request for the document.

You will, however, have to pay a copying fee of £5 (assuming the document is less than 10 pages).

The court can conduct searches by the names of the parties, and it should not be fobbing you off with a need to provide the case reference number.

Of course, this only applies if there is (unusually) a written judgment. Otherwise, you will only be able to obtain the order. Obtaining a transcript of an oral judgment would be much more difficult.

CobyBenson

dxc_chappie wrote: »

I forgot to include: I enquired about obtaining transcripts of CC cases for "research" purposes but was told I needed to have:

• the claim number
• the hearing date
• the name of the judge
• the county court where it was heard

as the court do not provide a search facility.

Furthermore, I was told in no uncertain terms that as I had no direct involvement I would need to fill in form N244 justifying why I need the transcripts which would then need to be approved by a DJ. Only then could transcripts be obtained (with the appropriate fee).

So much for public service transparency!

I've obtained a transcript before just using the parties names, date of hearing and court address.

I was initially told I couldn't get the transcript without permission, but if you read the rules then that isn't the case at all.

I made a complaint to the court and they then provided me with the full transcript.

jimcbob

CobyBenson wrote: »

The Judgment only came from the County Court so it won't appear in any law reports.

Fortunately however the Judge provided his Judgment in written form and there's a link to it at the bottom of the article here:-

I'd encourage any Claimants facing this argument to rely on the new Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd Judgment.

I have just spoken with the registry of the Court of Appeal, and they say that their records do not show any appeal having been filed in this case. It seems to me that any appeal should have gone to the Court of Appeal because the case was on the multi-track and the decision was final not interim (because Thomson conceded liability apart from limitation). Unless the judge extended time, the appeal would now be out of time because there is only a 21 day period for lodging an Appellant's Notice.

Therefore, I infer that Thomson has (wisely, from their perspective) decided not to appeal.

CobyBenson

.... and jimcbob has helpfully reproduced those rules above.

Obtaining the transcript is not more difficult, it's just more costly because you have to pay the fees of a transcription company.

JPears

Specious - I like that word. It certainly applies to alot of the pathetic BS from airlines

nigelpm

Bumping this as potentially relevant to other airlines but Thomson are now using the Dawson case as a means to attempt to stay all small claims court against them that are over two years :

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63200624#Comment_63200624

JPears

Can I just clarify, Thomson are using the specious 2 year rule for:
1. Claims for compensation recieved more than 2 years after the dealy
or
2. Claims for compensation more than 2 years ago, EVEN if the claimant submitted a claim to Thomson within 2 years of the delay?

nigelpm

JPears wrote: »

Can I just clarify, Thomson are using the specious 2 year rule for:
1. Claims for compensation recieved more than 2 years after the dealy
or
2. Claims for compensation more than 2 years ago, EVEN if the claimant submitted a claim to Thomson within 2 years of the delay?

I assume it is 1 (at point of MCOL) but not 100% sure.

How does it work with 6 years and other airlines?

Presume it's 6 years from delay to first initiation of MCOL?

JPears

My view is that if T were stating that the 2 year limit applies to commencing legal proceedings, then that would directly conflict with Statute of Limitations at 6 years and they will have a very, nay extremely shaky case on their appeal.
Quite a few of us had claims from more than 2 years ago (but weren't 2 years at the time of the initial claim to relevant airline), but had put legal action on hold until the end of last year when the definitve Sturgeon ruling was made.