Taking The Airlines To Court

Justnan

After receiving notification that our claim (daughters claim!) had been transferred to our local Court on 19/11/13, have today received a General Directions Order from Northampton saying ' This is not a claim which may be issued online. The claim is struck out. The Court was closed by the time I opened the letter, I will give them a ring tomorrow to try to establish why? The only thing I can think of is that, although my daughter, back in September, stated in the particulars that she was claiming on behalf of herself, her partner and their two children, the Court have now refused to ? Or has anyone any other suggestions as to why?

Vauban

Justnan wrote: »

After receiving notification that our claim (daughters claim!) had been transferred to our local Court on 19/11/13, have today received a General Directions Order from Northampton saying ' This is not a claim which may be issued online. The claim is struck out. The Court was closed by the time I opened the letter, I will give them a ring tomorrow to try to establish why? The only thing I can think of is that, although my daughter, back in September, stated in the particulars that she was claiming on behalf of herself, her partner and their two children, the Court have now refused to ? Or has anyone any other suggestions as to why?

That is most likely the reason why. MCOL shouldn't be used for multiple claimants, and some judges in Northampton seem to be getting stricter. Unfortunately, you'll likely need to reissue the claim on paper via your local court - and you won't get the original fee refunded.

purple_icecream

Vauban wrote: »

That is most likely the reason why. MCOL shouldn't be used for multiple claimants, and some judges in Northampton seem to be getting stricter. Unfortunately, you'll likely need to reissue the claim on paper via your local court - and you won't get the original fee refunded.

I did the MCOL for myself, husband and 2 daughters back in may, I had heard nothing about it being for single claimants, mine wasn't refused, now I have a hearing in march, will anything be thrown up now about the multiple claimants or has it got too far now for them to backtrack to that?

So does it mean then you have to do a separate MCOL for each passenger and pay £80 each? even for a child?

After all the work I have done so far it would be awful to make an issue of that now?!

Vauban

purple_icecream wrote: »

I did the MCOL for myself, husband and 2 daughters back in may, I had heard nothing about it being for single claimants, mine wasn't refused, now I have a hearing in march, will anything be thrown up now about the multiple claimants or has it got too far now for them to backtrack to that?

So does it mean then you have to do a separate MCOL for each passenger and pay £80 each? even for a child?

After all the work I have done so far it would be awful to make an issue of that now?!

I'd try not to worry. The airline may try to make something of it (claiming you have no "locus standi" to claim for your partner and kids). But it really is up to the Judge, who may be difficult, may suggest you amend your application by formally adding new claimants (for a further fee - recoverable if you win), or may not be fussed at all.

My advice is not to worry about this for now, and simply continue to prepare your case.

Hope you got my separate email?

steve1500

purple_icecream wrote: »

I did the MCOL for myself, husband and 2 daughters back in may, I had heard nothing about it being for single claimants, mine wasn't refused, now I have a hearing in march, will anything be thrown up now about the multiple claimants or has it got too far now for them to backtrack to that?

So does it mean then you have to do a separate MCOL for each passenger and pay £80 each? even for a child?

After all the work I have done so far it would be awful to make an issue of that now?!

As said, I wouldn''t worry. I did the same, wife & daughter. OK we settled before it got to court.

But my take was, I will either ask for the three of us at the same time, on the claim I had submitted or I would ask to amend to just me. Then when you win follows that rest of family will win

111KAB

steve1500 wrote: »

Then when you win follows that rest of family will win

Agree this should be the case Steve but maybe not if you fly Monarch. I am aware of two cases where the two court hearings have found in favour of the claimant. Case 1 where lead passenger claimed and won and expected Monarch to pay out for rest of family but they have refused so he is taking them to court again and Case 2 where my friends waited until I had 'won' then approached Monarch with a copy of my transcript only to be told - see you in Court. So same court, same delay possibly with same judge as small court and one particular judge seems to be listening to these cases. As I said on the Monarch thread .... bonkers!

Mark2spark

Maybe the EU ought to introduce a clause in the upcoming Amendment that requires an airline to pay out £/€1000 for every passenger that has to go to court for a flight that has already been decreed as non EC then.

No point waiting for the CAA to do anything about it :wall:

But it might be a useful release for the OP of the 2nd time around case that KAB mentions, to write to the CAA and ask them *WHY* they are not enforcing against Monarch in that specific instance?
Followed up to MP/MEP etc when CAA reply/don't reply of course.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

Maybe the EU ought to introduce a clause in the upcoming Amendment that requires an airline to pay out £/€1000 for every passenger that has to go to court for a flight that has already been decreed as non EC then.

No point waiting for the CAA to do anything about it :wall:

But it might be a useful release for the OP of the 2nd time around case that KAB mentions, to write to the CAA and ask them *WHY* they are not enforcing against Monarch in that specific instance?
Followed up to MP/MEP etc when CAA reply/don't reply of course.

When I spoke to a senior CAA official about this a couple of months ago he was clear that the CAA were unlikely to act against airlines unless they were in clear breach of UK law. He argued Wallentin was ambiguous, that their (CAA's) guidelines on technical problems as ECs were compatible with law (yes really!), and that only when a higher court in the UK set a clear precedent on this would they revise their position.

As I've consistently said, stay clear of them.

Vauban

Bumping this back up - as the first few pages are quite useful (and it has been buried by folk starting their own random threads).

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

When I spoke to a senior CAA official about this a couple of months ago he was clear that the CAA were unlikely to act against airlines unless they were in clear breach of UK law. He argued Wallentin was ambiguous, that their (CAA's) guidelines on technical problems as ECs were compatible with law (yes really!), and that only when a higher court in the UK set a clear precedent on this would they revise their position.

You can tell who pays his wages!