Taking The Airlines To Court

batman44

Flyinghappy wrote: »

Hi
I've been following this thread for a while and was wondering if someone could help

I have issued claim to thomson, it's allocated to small claims and there are a number of things I need to do

One of them is to send witness statements and any information I will rely on in court to the court and thomson.

I'm going down the extraordinary circumstances path and the fact that the onus is on them to prove the circumstances were extraordinary - however they have also filed an alternative defence citing the Montreal convention

Do I continue to proceed with the hearing arguing out the extraordinary circumstances first knowing that even if I win the case will be stayed on the alternative defence pending sc outcome of t vs Dawson.

Or do I ask for a stay beforehand? Also what needs to be written in these statements is it just that we were on the plane and it was delayed or do I need to bring up that they have never provided me with proof etc of the circumstances (other than cite Montreal convention)


Any help greatly appreciated!

What the airlines say is rubbish, first if your flight was delayed by a tech issue then you have a case just proceed with it. Do not ask for a stay this may be done automatically anyway by the court. The airlines air just delaying tactics (no pun intended) with the excuses, the regulations are perfectly clear and no other regs are precedent above EU Reg 261/2004 including the Montreal Convention, so take no notice. We will all find out in the next few weeks or months anyway so just carry on and ignore their excuse.
You will need to find out what caused the delay but you will probably not know this until a later date, what excuse have they give why the aircraft was delayed? Most tech faults and you have a valid claim except if it was cause by some outside influence that the airline has no control over.

Vauban

Flyinghappy wrote: »

Hi
I've been following this thread for a while and was wondering if someone could help

I have issued claim to thomson, it's allocated to small claims and there are a number of things I need to do

One of them is to send witness statements and any information I will rely on in court to the court and thomson ...

Any help greatly appreciated!

Hopefully you've had a gander of my guide, which covers a lot of this (details below). You might also read my account of my time in court where some of this is also covered (it's towards the end of the Court Successes thread).

Flyinghappy

Without going into too much information they haven't officially told me that that there was an extraordinary circumstance until I received the defence - they were just using the Montreal convention.

However the CAA had already disclosed the info to me so I've had time to look into and gather relevant info on occurrences from the CAA and in my opinion something that happens at least weekly over a year is not an extraordinary circumstance!

JPears

Bumped to the top for those incapable of reading/taking notice of sticky or desperate to start ANOTHER new thread.

Vauban

Found behind the sofa ...

NoviceAngel

hmmmm, you left this little nugget out of the guide. Really made me :j

Vauban wrote: »

Yes you should. Look at page one of this thread - there are a couple of sexual links, including on working out interest.

JPears wrote: »

trying to see the joke - or typo?

I thought, it was deliberate

Luke84 wrote: »

Thanks to all your great advices I'm at the moment of writing a MCOL Statement. I just wanted to know how much I can claim.
I'm entitled to €600 but I don't know if I should include in the statement 8% interest on top. My flight was in October 2007.
Thanks

Vauban

Yes. It didn't make the pre-9pm watershed.

(I have no idea what it is even meant to read - "separate" maybe?)

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

That's awful! I blame apple's predictive text. It was meant to be "useful" I think, but frankly who knows. More disturbing, perhaps, is that it still got a "thanks":D

Yes, well of course, nowadays I always go back and EDIT my posts, sometimes it's funnier just to leave the mistakes in.

NoviceAngel

Thanks to Vauban for pointing this thread out, if you haven't read it, start from page 1 it's worth the read....

JPears wrote: »

Here is a transcript of the Judges summing up in my lost 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.

I'd never read this before but this fills me with outrage that such a statement can be made, which as it turns out is completely untrue, and even the Supreme Court has now ruled on this matter, and JP there's not a darn thing you can do about it - Make no wonder JP is still here helping members like me (you must be steaming m8) take on Jet2, what happened to JP was a total lack of justice by a Judge that didn't even understand the regulation himself.

It's too much for me to comprehend this evening, so I'm having some time away and will be back to help where I can in a couple of days.

I have to say a great big thank you to Vauban, Kab, and of course JP without their input this part of MSE wouldn't even exist, and I'd still be peeing in the wind with regards my case against J2. I'd like to think win or lose my case I'd still be here to offer guidance to others, I'm not sure I will, but you can see from the victories in the past and from the failures of others, we owe a huge thank you to the members in here that help us out for what is quite a daunting battle against the might of the airline industry. Of Course, totally unpaid, without any monetary reward. The next member that moans about being told to read the FAQ, or even read Vaubans guide will not get any help from me. I can see the dedication by the lead members of this forum, and it's about time they got the respect that they deserve.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I'd never read this before but this fills me with outrage that such a statement can be made, which as it turns out is completely untrue, and even the Supreme Court has now ruled on this matter, and JP there's not a darn thing you can do about it -

The outrage is understandable but it just shows what a huge debt we all owe to Jet 2 for their decision to take Huzar first to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court.

One of the features of English Law is the principle of "Stare Decicis" which means that decisions of higher courts must be followed.

Previously cases were won and lost according to whether an individual technical problem was or was not extraordinary and it depended on factors such as how well the case was presented as well as the circumstances.

If Jet2 had left Huzar as a decision of a County Court Circuit judge, this would have had persuasive authority only (although it was fantastic for my own case which was heard a week later).

Huzar, which held that virtually no technical problem can be an extraordinary circumstance, goes further than Wallentin and is now binding on all lower Courts which is why up and down the country stayed cases are being brought back to life and airlines are starting to pay up.

So Jet2 really shot themselves and all other airlines in the foot.