Taking The Airlines To Court

Vauban

I have enjoyed making this point previously. Jet2 can't have made many friends in the airline industry.

To play Devil's advocate however, the point in your antepenultimate paragraph is significant. There was a lot of anecdotal evidence that, in the few weeks following Huzar before there was an appeal, claimants were securing comprehensive and easy wins because of the "persuasive" judgment from Platts. So there is an argument that there was little else to do but appeal, as the impact of the Platt judgement was already so damaging.

Of course, what Jet2 should have done is settle. The entire approach before Huzar was based on rejecting most claims with the confidence that the overwhelming majority of applicants wouldn't bring it to court. The evidence reported on her was that most airlines usually settled, once they saw they were up against a determined opponent. That was by far the most effective stratagem for minimizing the realisation of an airline's 261/04 liability

I remember discussing this point with Monarch's barrister in my own case (when Huzar was but a twinkle in the eye). I suggested that all this debate over Wallentin could be ended by a higher court clarifying some of the key concepts. The barrister said that he did not think this would happen, with the implication that airlines would avoid such a risky escalation.

Jet2's mistake was in not settling with Mr. Huzar once they could see he was serious - and that he had the support of a law firm keen to establish a precedent. There is nothing wrong with the principle of defending yourself in court, when you believe you are right. But if your legal position depends upon a tendentious interpretation of the law that is unlikely to bear close scrutiny, it seems to me to have been most ill-advised.

But then I'm a lover, not a lawyer ...

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie wrote: »

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.

Absolutely agree, the point that made my blood boil is that there must have been so many miscarriages of justice pre-Huzar and there is no right to redress through the Courts, I accept that the ECs legislation is much clearer post Huzar but that doesn't help claimants that have suffered defeat at the hands of a less knowledgeable DJ.

I would be interested to know any lawyers view to this bizarre quirk of our legal system. IMHO there should be a right of redress.

Petethepilot

Just initiated the process of taking Monarch through the small claims court. Have a very helpful email trail with the Monarch Customer Services who have provided detailed accounts of reasons for delays and other related responses. They appear to want to try and defend the case but post Supreme Court ruling, but we will see what they try and come up with. Luckily I am a pilot (although that might only help to see through the airline's BS), plus I have legal support and experience of the small claims court (about 10 times over about 20 years). Don't want to be over confident but will see and will post the defence they come up with to help others. One useful source of information is the CAA website and the punctuality of airlines. Needless to say Monarch is a chronic poor performer. Shame really as their staff are always very pleasant, but as an airline, oh dear.

NoviceAngel

Petethepilot wrote: »

Needless to say Monarch is a chronic poor performer. Shame really as their staff are always very pleasant, but as an airline, oh dear.

Interesting first post, Dr Watson quite rightly corrected me, in that the airline staff (Ryanair) are treated in much the same way as their passengers with utter contempt.

So definitely, respect to all that work in the airline industry at the behest of these airlines, that still continue to refuse legitimate claims under EC261/2004 regs.

Flyinghappy

Hi
Thought I would just post and update you on my story to date,

After filing a certificate of suitability for our son (who was 3 at the time) and 3 witness statements and paying the hearing fee of £115, I decided to ring thomson and ask where their witness statements were as I'd not received anything.

They confirmed a cheque had been sent to me but could not confirm the amount, anyway today I received a cheque for just over £1200 which was 3x400 euro plus court costs plus interest at 4% (ok it wasn't the 8% which I'd claimed but following the recent court cases I've not seen many get the full amount)

Small victory for us also so glad that I made a claim in august 2 weeks before the 6 years were up otherwise we would have no leg to stand on

Many thanks for all the updates on here that helped me and others!!

JPears

Congratulations - you're a winner!

Vauban

Bumping (links on page one may be useful)

clippy_girl

hi all,

just a small update on my easyjet case.

as some of you may recall, i got a judgement in default as they sent the claim form back to the court so didn't respond. they then put in an application for the judgement to be set aside on the basis that they weren't the 'operating air carrier' as they did not own or operate the plane'.

this was actually listed for a hearing in my local court whilst i was on holiday (and would have cost me £150 to change the date). i sent in a witness statement to the court producing the full regulation and highlighting para 7 stating they were still responsible.

when i returned from holiday i had a letter stating the judge dismissed their application after reading my statement and because they didn't turn up!

Have just sent them a final letter demanding payment of the ccj by 19th dec or i'm sending it up to the high court for a writ of control. fingers crossed they pay up now or they will be getting a little visit

NoviceAngel

clippy_girl wrote: »

hi all,

Have just sent them a final letter demanding payment of the ccj by 19th dec or i'm sending it up to the high court for a writ of control. fingers crossed they pay up now or they will be getting a little visit

We will next see this case on the BBC's 'The Sheriffs are coming' well done and congrats :beer:

Although I do recall a case already featured of J2 at Leeds/Bradford they were just about to stop the 9am trip to Alicante, (because of an allegedly Extra Ordinary circumstance) which didn't fly till 7pm when J2 paid up - something like that anyway !

legal_magpie

You have been tolerant in giving them so much time. Sheriffs might have removed an aircraft if they didn't pay up