Court success thread

dino25uk

Folks, a further success in court ruling in my favour. Just waiting on the full details as I could not attend the hearing, will post them when everything is settled. Thanks to everyone for their comments and guidance on this forum, I couldn't have done it without that.
:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

Vauban

dino25uk wrote: »

Folks, a further success in court ruling in my favour. Just waiting on the full details as I could not attend the hearing, will post them when everything is settled. Thanks to everyone for their comments and guidance on this forum, I couldn't have done it without that.
:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

We very much look forward to the gory details. This is I think the second defeat in court for Jet2 in short order. Well done.

P_Doff

Vauban wrote: »

We very much look forward to the gory details. This is I think the second defeat in court for Jet2 in short order. Well done.

Here here! Well done indeed Dino.

JPears

P_Doff wrote: »

I do hope you're right.

If Jet2 take it to appeal and they loose, this will likely set precedent as it will be in a higher court. The other airlines will not thank them for this.

David_e

Centipede100 wrote: »

Successes now number 41 against 2 losses...

Hadn't seen the 2nd loss. Please could you point me to the relevant thread if you have it handy.

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

Hadn't seen the 2nd loss. Please could you point me to the relevant thread if you have it handy.

There is no thread. The claimant has pm'd a few of the more experienced posters, but has not gone public. Until s/he does, all I will say is that the claim was against Monarch for a technical failure that was discovered just before take-off.

The judge ruled that the nature of the technical failure could not have been picked up in routine maintenance and was therefore a "hidden manufacturing defect", as described in Wallentin. Those of you familiar with the Wallentin judgement will have your own views on that ruling.

But this is part of the process. Sometimes you get a judge who takes a more, shall we say, idiosyncratic view. All you can do - in those circumstances - is to appeal (as indeed some are doing ...).

P_Doff

Vauban wrote: »

There is no thread. The claimant has pm'd a few of the more experienced posters, but has not gone public. Until s/he does, all I will say is that the claim was against Monarch for a technical failure that was discovered just before take-off.

The judge ruled that the nature of the technical failure could not have been picked up in routine maintenance and was therefore a "hidden manufacturing defect", as described in Wallentin. Those of you familiar with the Wallentin judgement will have your own views on that ruling.

But this is part of the process. Sometimes you get a judge who takes a more, shall we say, idiosyncratic view. All you can do - in those circumstances - is to appeal (as indeed some are doing ...).

What an injustice! Most faults cannot be picked up in routine maintenance and are just random failures of one sort or another. That doesn't make it a "hidden manufacturing defect". That is what was touted in my case but fortunately for me the DJ knew better. I am absolutely gutted for the claimant.

JPears

Monarch must be !!!!ing themselves silly, they have actually successfully defended - so far;)

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

There is no thread.

Understood - thanks.

Vauban wrote: »

All you can do - in those circumstances - is to appeal (as indeed some are doing ...).

Good. Let's hope successfully.

jackndaz

Just wanted to add my case to this thread and ask for some more advice, TC legal rang me yesterday offering me an out of court settlement on the promise that my cheque will be with me by Friday 26th July 2013. Something hasn't quite sat right with me all night with the conversation, I will try to be as brief as possible.... After the initial offer of the settlement amount the person I spoke to asked if I wouldn't mind contacting the courts and letting them know that I have accepted an offer and would not be taking this further and that my cheque will be with me by Friday she knows this is not the normal run of things (doing this before cheque has arrived) but she obviously would contact the court herself but she said it would just move things along quicker if we both did it. Like I said it hasn't sat well so I did not contact the court. Lo and behold a letter arrived this morning basically giving a run down of our conversation and a copy letter for the court attached. TC's defence had to be filed and served by the 26th July 2013 (surprise surprise) they will not be preparing any documents and will not dispute the claim as they have reached a settlement. Now I know why she wanted me to contact the court ! I have rang her back today and said if my cheque is not with me on Friday 26th I will continue with my claim through the courts, she advised me my cheque was being prepared and should be with me tomorrow ! If I can have a letter received the next day after a telephone call surely a cheque could have been added to said letter.