Taking The Airlines To Court

ChorizoMan

Thanks David_e - that's exactly the advice I was hoping for.

And yes - as Centipede rightly says - the 2 year anniversary is approaching, so my NBA is being sent today.

purple_icecream

Vauban wrote: »

JJ is a lawyer; and I am not. So you should weigh these comments accordingly!

But unless your submission depends upon the Huzar judgement, I do not see why you should agree a stay. Your case can be argued with binding European law (which is not being appealed) and I do not see why a claimant in these circumstances should consent to an airline's request that you park your claim. Especially as Huzar could be further appealed (if the airlines lose) to the Supreme Court or even, possibly, back to Europe.

Given this, would it really be so unreasonable to expect the airline to apply for a stay in the proper way and put their argument before a judge? I wouldn't think so, but then I am not a lawyer.

I have included the Huzar case in my bundle but have not quoted any of the Huzar in my witness statement only Wallentin, so on this basis should I refuse and say I am not relying on Huzar?

Thank you

purple_icecream

legal_magpie wrote: »

This is probably the first time that I have disagreed with the illustrious Vauban but I'm going to over this.


The airline will get their further stay, whether or not you object. While you don't have to make things easier for them, if you refuse to consent and force them to make a formal application and they win, you may well be ordered to pay their costs on the basis that:


(1) You forced them to make it


(2) You lost


(3) Your action was unreasonable


So on this occasion, I suggest that you agree. you have nothing to lose
JJ

Thank you for your reply legal magpie, if I point out that my claim is not relying on Huzar, but Wallentin then surely there's no point them applying for a stay?

What does their application consist of ?- Obviously they write to the court, then do the court approach me and ask me anything, or do they just apply, pay, then I get a notification to say its been stayed?

Any idea how much the costs to me would be if they won the application to stay and I had refused?

Thank you

ItsThePrinciple

For what its worth, I took easyJet to Court last Thursday over excessive cancellation fees, and won! Just awaiting my cheque!

edtheduck_2

hi
I lodged my claim online ( in northern ireland) on 27th May and I haven't heard or received anything. There is a return date of 9th July showing on the system but did I not read somewhere that they (TC) have 14 days to reply or do something?
Is this right or is there a chance its different in NI. There's not much info on the courtsni website.
If it is 14 days, are they working days and is that from the date registered which for me was the next day 28th May?
Thank you

batman44

purple_icecream wrote: »

Thank you for your reply legal magpie, if I point out that my claim is not relying on Huzar, but Wallentin then surely there's no point them applying for a stay?

What does their application consist of ?- Obviously they write to the court, then do the court approach me and ask me anything, or do they just apply, pay, then I get a notification to say its been stayed?

Any idea how much the costs to me would be if they won the application to stay and I had refused?

Thank you

Let me just point out here now, ALL claims that rely on technical defects are being stayed as a matter of course irrespective by the courts pending the Huzar decision. I did not even get the chance to object the court just did it and the judge pointed out that ALL cases are being stayed pending this and this is a matter of national legal matter that will affect many cases going through the courts.

So it looks like the judges have got together and decided this, and also the have asked the defendant if they have had any claims for this flight before and if so what was the outcome. It looks to me many will get the claims payed out if the airlines lose and they will not even have to go to court, the judge will just make an order.

legal_magpie

batman44 wrote: »

Let me just point out here now,
So it looks like the judges have got together and decided this, and also the have asked the defendant if they have had any claims for this flight before and if so what was the outcome. It looks to me many will get the claims payed out if the airlines lose and they will not even have to go to court, the judge will just make an order.

The point of all this is to try to get some consistency. There is no problem with a case being stayed. It is simply on hold. The law on extraordinary circumstances was complicated. Huzar made it far less complicated. The issue is whether Huzar went too far. The decision of the Court of Appeal will (hopefully) give clarity.
JJ

Vauban

batman44 wrote: »

Let me just point out here now, ALL claims that rely on technical defects are being stayed as a matter of course irrespective by the courts pending the Huzar decision.

Not quite, batman: I know of at least one person whose case was not stayed, despite a request from the airline ...

batman44

Just posted on the justice uk site

notice

Take notice that on WEDNESDAY, 11 JUNE, 2014 in COURT 7, at 10:30, Judgment will be given in the following.

APPEAL

From County Courts

FINAL DECISIONS

B2/2013/3277 Huzar -v- Jet2.com Limited.

Vauban

edtheduck wrote: »

Hi
not sure if anyone else has put the link up elsewhere, but the judgement can be found here,


http://legalbeagles.info/jet2-com-ltd-v-huzar-2014-ewca-civ-791-11-june-2014/


So I am in the middle of my court claim (online) with Thomas Cook, so I guess I'll just have to wait it out until 9th July; the date they have to respond by.

There is a whole Huzar thread, Ed ...