Court success thread

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

My legal proceedings have gone a bit peculiar

Vauban

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

My legal proceedings have gone a bit peculiar

Now you can't leave us hanging like that ...

sging1

JPears wrote: »

1 Lost - but moral victory, duff judge and cost Jet2 thousands, when they could have given me £450 6 months ago....

I attended court a few weeks ago and the judge admitted he new nothing about this regulation and then was sold by the Thomas Cook barrister quoting the Graham & Anor v Thomas Cook the judge then, based on this, put it in the hands of the CAA to conclude the outcome, which I am now waiting upon.

What the judge should have known was the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU of 31 January 2013 in case C-12/11, McDonagh v Ryanair, in which the CJEU rejected the argument that the possibility of enforcement of the Regulation by national enforcement bodies such as the CAA affected in any way the possibility of private enforcement at the behest of individuals (see, in particular, paragraph 22 of the judgment). It is thus patent that, in the light of McDonagh v Ryanair, Graham v Thomas Cook can simply no longer be regarded as applicable law.

In light of how my judge is working I am however concerned on what the CAA have published on their web site ( as published by cawman45 below) stating what they see as EC. I know it isn't case law and can't supersede Wallertin, but why do the CAA just stay within the law.

“Originally Posted by cawman45
Anyone have an opinion on this? CAA has published guidance on what constitutes ECs. Dated 23rd July; this extract from what's not an EC seems a bit concerning but not entirely unexpected from the Airlines' friends at CAA?

Full doc. on CAA web site

Unexpected
flight safety
shortcomings

Any other technical defects which become apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight (where the system or part had been maintained in accordance with the required maintenance programme) and which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight. "

I to look like I have a duff judge also that might make this 2 losses on here. After fighting this all the way to court, I am however now trying to get my legal home insurance cover to take it on before the main visit to court in a few months after the CAA concludes their verdict, but they may not as the case is already running. I am now happy however to get the help of a no win no cost firm now as its not about the money, its about proving they are wrong, and my case, I know is within the law to claim. TC have several times failed to tell me what the technical fault was even though I know from the pilot, they never even put it in their defence.

Do anyone know who would now take on this case if I go down this route.

Anyone want the full details of my case just PM me.

111KAB

sging1 wrote: »

Do anyone know who would now take on this case if I go down this route.

Suggest you PM Coby Benson to gain his opinion.

jacques_chirac

sging1 wrote: »

Any other technical defects which become apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight (where the system or part had been maintained in accordance with the required maintenance programme) and which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight. "

I don't know the circumstances of your case, but in the above the key word to me is immediately prior to departure. Given that not all the examples specify this, I would argue that this exception would only apply when everyone is seated and the plane is ready to taxi - not whilst everyone is still sat in the departure lounge.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Guidance is just guidance and does not influence the current relevant law or case law one iota, ignore this guidance as it is simply a wish list from NEBs.

Imagine an airline quoting this guidance in a court hearing, you would have a field day and I would bring popcorn along if this were ever cited in a case under current Reg/law.

Trust this puts this nonsense to bed...!

Yes, but it will be important for claimants to make this point clearly. There is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence on here of judges being swayed by the CAA's view - even if it is inconsistent with EU case law.

Would a claimant really have a field day if the airline tried to use this as evidence? I'm not persuaded ...

Mark2spark

sging1 wrote: »

I attended court a few weeks ago and the judge admitted he new nothing about this regulation...

So surely to referred him to your bundle, where you had printed out the relevant part of the Regulation, and the accompanying case law...?

friendofbillw2

Vauban wrote: »

Yes, but it will be important for claimants to make this point clearly. There is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence on here of judges being swayed by the CAA's view - even if it is inconsistent with EU case law.

Would a claimant really have a field day if the airline tried to use this as evidence? I'm not persuaded ...

A claimant with all 7 pages of the document to hand - especially the BIG RED BITS and five notes on page one - should be able to enjoy a popcorn moment, I'd suggest.

sging1

Mark2spark wrote: »

So surely to referred him to your bundle, where you had printed out the relevant part of the Regulation, and the accompanying case law...?

He actually referred to it and said he could see I was knowledgeable on the regulations and relevant cases. There was only 20mins booked for the hearing as it should have been to just decide what track to put it on. He then decided to put it back to the small claims, stay it until next year and order TC to co-operate with the CAA, which they failed to do up to now.
In fact they still haven’t proved EC and didn’t even try to in court. As long as the CAA do there job right then it’s a good result, but they have been ruling some technical issues as being EC, lately but then the case goes on to be won in court by the claimant.

I’ll have to wait on the CAA, but my legal insurance have agreed to cover it from here, so however the CAA rule when it goes back to court I’ll have a more balanced chance now.

MrsChewy

Found this article on Bott & Co Solicitors

bottonline.co.uk/aviation-latest-news/462-european-commission-clarifies-flight-compensation

which clarifies the position.

IMO the new guidelines were drafted to be annexed to the new regulation which is currently going through govenance. (See EU impact assessment for full text.). Where the scope of technical EC's are being extended.

IMO the new guidelines are dangerous in that judges will use them in line with the current Regulation and this is incorrect as the new regulation is going to be different as we know amending time limits and interestingly defining flight as yours or the previous flight.

Why the NEB have decided to publish these early is a mystery.

Also although the new Regulation is in its early stages what would happen if before your case came to court the new Regulation was released would your case be dealt with under the new or old?