Taking The Airlines To Court

razorsedge

razorsedge wrote: »

On the Notice that Acknowledgement of Service Has Been Filed letter sent by the court the defendant airline has 'given a new address for service of documents' as address 'X'. This is listed on the court document.

However sent from the court a few weeks later with the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims track Form N149A the airline after their defence statement have given an address for receiving documents as 'Y'.

The two addresses are very different. Can somebody offer advice as to which address should be used? Address 'X' on the earlier official court form or address 'Y' on the later defence document that was sent by the court but not an official court form in itself?

Thanks

Apologies, I was a bit rushed last night. A bit more detail:
Address 'X' is the airline's registered address and was used on the N1 claim form, so it was a slight surprise when the Notice that Acknowledgement of Service Has Been Filed letter from the court stated 'the defendant airline has given a new address for service of documents' which was the also address 'X' unchanged from that used on the N1 claim form.
Address 'Y' is the airline's customer service contact address which presumably is also where their legal team are based.

CobyBenson

I'd use the most recent address.

JPears

"Stickie" bump

Star9272

Is there a time limit from issue of NBA to taking further proceedings? I'm a little strapped for cash at the moment to pay MCOL.

111KAB

Star9272 wrote: »

Is there a time limit from issue of NBA to taking further proceedings? I'm a little strapped for cash at the moment to pay MCOL.

No but really you should not issue a NBA if you don't mean it - do not use as a threat to take action. Your NBA should also advise the airline you are going to take action if you don't hear from them say in 14/21 days.

Star9272

111KAB wrote: »

No but really you should not issue a NBA if you don't mean it - do not use as a threat to take action. Your NBA should also advise the airline you are going to take action if you don't hear from them say in 14/21 days.

Thanks, I do mean it, I've noted down all the good advice, got copies of everything ready,registered with MCOL then had some bad news re partners job. Hopefully I'll be sorted soon, it's just been a bad time.

JPears

Here is a transcript of the Judges summing up in my lost case.
Quite a few discrepancies and maybe not au fait with some aspects of case law and terminology? Keen eyed/old hands on this forum will spot them.
But it give an idea of the reasoning one judge may make.
Interestingly "T Bird" is not on the list of legal team at "Birds. I wonder if judge misheard? I don't recall him actually giving his name.

IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT No. 3QT01147
The Courthouse 1 Oxford Row LeedsTuesday, 4th June 2013
Before: DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE CARSON
B E T W E E N : ************ Claimant - and - JET2.COM LIMITED Defendant
THE CLAIMANT appeared in Person.
MR. T. BIRD (instructed by Bird & Bird) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
_________
J U D G M E N T
(As approved by the Judge)
THE DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE:
1 This is a claim brought by Mr. P on his own behalf and that of his daughter in a claim against Jet2.com for compensation arising out of a delay of a return flight from Chamb!ry to Leeds Bradford in February 2011, a delay of some 5½ hours.

2 Mr. P, who represented himself in person, I have to say, presented an extremely competent case, acting as a litigant in person .The research and work he has put into this is very impressive. I also found Mr. P to be a very honest witness. For the defendants, I had an extremely helpful bundle and representations made to me by Mr. Bird, and, again, the presentation was of a very high standard. I heard witness evidence from Mr. Sabey and Mr. Balcombe for the defendants, and, again, I found their evidence helpful and I found both witnesses honest and were clearly giving evidence to the best of their abilities.

3 So, having found a high level of presentation in a small claim, I now consider the merits of the case. Obviously, it is a legal decision which I have to come to based on the Regulations and the law and making appropriate findings of fact, where appropriate. It is accepted that there was a delay of 5½ hours and it is accepted that the Regulations 261 of 2004 apply. Mr. Bird has helpfully had gone through the various Regulations and the various legal tests which I will need to consider. There is no doubt, as Mr. P says, that the purpose of these Regulations is to provide consumers with a high level of protection. The points he made about operational choices and schedule, scheduling times, in his submissions, were interesting points, factors that I consider of some relevance.

4 Looking at the overall obligations, there clearly was a delay and, as has been agreed, the onus passes over to the defendants to establish that it was an exceptional circumstance. The fact of a delay alone is not sufficient to entitle Mr. P to compensation. It is not a strict liability case, as such, in that because there is delay Mr. P is entitled to compensation. There is a very high standard put upon the airlines by these Regulations, but, nonetheless, it is not an absolute, and if the defendants then prove on the balance of probabilities that there were exceptional circumstances in respect of this delay then they can escape liability here. So the question is whether or not there were exceptional circumstances.

5 The nature of the defect which caused this delay was set out in the witness evidence of Mr. Balcombe, and I was interested by the statement from Mr. P about the potential cause of this fault. But, as Mr. P honestly accepted and had to accept, he is not an airline engineer or experienced in this area, although he obviously has a very high level of technical knowledge. Obviously, I need to look mainly in terms of weighted evidence. The evidence of Mr. Balcombe I think is the most significant because he is able to say what caused this particular problem, and he said in evidence that the fault with the circuit breaker was, on the balance of probabilities, more likely than not due to a power spike. He said in evidence that in his experience of 40 years this has happened on only three times.

6 So, on the face of it, this is a technical problem that is out of the ordinary. The fact, as Mr. Bird says in his submissions, that it occurred after the plane had left the area of the docking point (i.e. after routine maintenance had been carried out), to my mind, on the balance of probabilities, does indicate that this was a fault that was out of the ordinary and was therefore an exceptional circumstance. It is not something that, and I think Mr. P accepts this in his evidence, could have been reasonably foreseen to have occurred. I do have considerable sympathy with Mr. P, but I find as a fact that this was a type of technical fault that was out of the ordinary and comes within the exceptions, as set out in the case of Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia, which has been referred to me.

7 The question is, however, whether or not the defendant could have made alternate arrangements in terms of other aircraft and other crew. Again, Mr. P had put forward some interesting arguments, and I have some sympathy with those arguments about operational arguments. But, at the end of the day, Jet2 do operate as a business and it is a question of getting the balance, as Mr. Bird says, between the interests of air passengers and the airline itself. Because it was an unforeseen and unexpected circumstance, I do not think it would have been reasonable for Jet2 to have had on hand, so to speak, an alternate crew that could have simply stepped in immediately to fly this aircraft to Chamb!ry; it required specialist crew. I do not think that would have been reasonable given that the nature of this type of technical problem is so rare. If it occurred as a result of routine maintenance or some other reason, then I think there would be a much greater case for Jet2 to answer, but I think, in these circumstances, it would not have been reasonable to have another crew on hand. I accept the evidence of Mr. Sabey that the only possibilities available in terms of the other aircraft -- one had another route planned so that was impracticable, another did not have the appropriate crew. In terms of aircraft outside of other airports, I do not think that would have been, in terms of the delay, the potential cost and the potential savings, reasonable or economic for Jet2 to have utilised an airport outside of Leeds Bradford.

8 I will deal briefly with the flight point. Mr. P has, again very cleverly, put forward the argument that this technical defence does not apply because it was not actually the particular flight where the technical delay occurred, the technical fault occurred; it was the outbound flight. But I think that was covered by Mr. Bird in Finnair, that it covered the course of flights on that day and applied to both inbound and outbound flight. So I do think the technical fault which was an extraordinary circumstance did apply to this particular case.

9 Therefore, having found that Mr. P has put forward a very, very good case, I do find that on the law, for the reasons I have set out, the defendants have satisfied the burden of proof, that this was an extraordinary circumstance, and, in the circumstances, I dismiss the claim.

Mark2spark

Good Lord. :undecided

So riddled with holes I don't know where to begin.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

Good Lord. :undecided

So riddled with holes I don't know where to begin.

One word: "inherent"

Star9272

Do we now have to start counting how many times a part goes tech?