Court success thread

JPears

Congratulations Lord Professor V.
Its a shame the Judge couldn't apply some additional sanction for the contempt Monarch showed both you and the legal system.
Are you using the payout for another holiday with Monarch?
Maybe you may have a final left hook for them if the sherriffs are required

razorsedge

Vauban wrote: »

Third Time Lucky

Let’s have a collective drink to that! :beer:

Many congratulations Vauban, not only for your win, but also for a very well written account of the whole saga, the Vikings would have been so proud

I suppose we should have expected nothing less though, given the high quality of your helpful posts and of your bundle documents.:T

As a mere squire following in your footsteps I am now brimming with confidence over my own case. I think a promotion to at least an Earl would be in order.

:beer:

Mark2spark

Well Done Vauban :T

Collectively, we *must* find a way of bringing the CAA down in this as well... :mad: :cool:

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

Collectively, we *must* find a way of bringing the CAA down in this as well... :mad: :cool:

I agree. I think it may be time for a Judicial Review ...

Mark2spark

Aren't cracked windscreens on the NEB's list of allowed EC's?

ArianSandra

My storytelling skills don’t rival those of Vauban and razorsedge but I hope there will be some entertainment for you in this tale.

Briefly, my partner and I suffered a 15 hour delay travelling to Dubrovnik on ZB7292 12 May last year which necessitated an overnight stay at Gatwick. Because of the long transfer to resort we’d purposely chosen an afternoon flight so we would arrive in time for bed and then have a full first day in resort. So we were less than impressed to be getting up at 5am on day one and arriving in the mid afternoon.

My own claim for compensation under Regulation 261/2004 was met with the now familiar response from Monarch (my partner has yet to receive any response whatever) so in August, having educated myself through these wonderful boards, I commenced legal action through MCOL for both of us. Apparently that’s wrong but I didn’t realise that then. After Christmas, with a hearing scheduled for 19 February, I started stalking these boards (along with a few of its regular contributors) in earnest and began compiling my witness statements and court bundle.

Mid January, Monarch wrote to the court and me requesting a stay pending the Huzar appeal (it was not then an appeal – only a request for leave to appeal. A little fudging of the facts there Monarch...) I opposed on those grounds and that I wasn’t relying on Huzar. The wheels of justice grind exceeding slow, and a day before the bundles were due in there was still no direction from the court. So I called them to find that Monarch had been ordered to make a formal application. I spoke to Monarch who advised they would not be doing so. I said “Then we will proceed – see you in court” and posted my court bundle. Subsequently I discovered from the court that Monarch had in fact made an application (shock, horror, more untruths?) but had submitted no bundle.

Midway through yesterday (H-day minus 1) Monarch called to say the court required a consent order signed by me agreeing to the stay. They admitted they hadn’t submitted any defence papers and nobody was lined up to attend the hearing, so they might in fact be struck out. They were not complimentary about the efficiency of my local county court – shame on them. I considered the order they’d written, which stated ‘It is agreed that: The claim be stayed pending the determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal in the matter of Ronald Huzar v. Jet2.com. The Claimant has exhibited the case to her list of documents and it is therefore essential that a definitive ruling on the matter is made.’ Well actually Monarch it’s neither agreed nor essential! The judgement was in my bundle but not quoted in my arguments. I declined to sign. So in the interest of goodwill they offered to settle my claim + MCOL fee. I said “add the hearing fee and pay me by 9am and you have a deal.” They couldn’t do that of course as it was by now almost 6pm but they guaranteed I’d have the money by close of business today. For some reason I didn’t trust them to do that if I vacated the hearing so I told them I’d be attending. They seemed a bit miffed by this and said they couldn’t see any sense in them attending. I’ll bet.

I think I’m a little in love with Judge Christopher Lethem at Tunbridge Wells.

H-day. Confirming Monarch had requested an adjournment pending the outcome of the Huzar appeal, Judge Lethem explained how that appeal failing would strengthen my case. I agreed but that if it went the other way it would not so I wasn’t relying on it. His view was firmly that, although familiar with the authorities I was relying on, Judge Platts’ judgement in Huzar is reliable law at this moment and supports my claim. Of course, he acknowledged, if my claim were to succeed on those grounds and then Jet2 won, Monarch could appeal. I pointed out that Monarch hadn’t submitted any defence. “No they haven’t, have they!” he said. And they haven’t attended, I observed. “That’s true!” he said. “Are you a lawyer?” (I think he was enjoying all this.) He then slung the folder of papers across the desk and began writing in a silence punctuated only by reassuring nods and smiles at me across the desk. I smiled back. A lot.

Eventually he sat back and recited his judgement for the recording (I didn’t know they recorded them!) First he refused the request to adjourn and then he struck out their defence because of their “flagrant and blatant” disregard for court rules and directions – specifically CPR 27.4. He is “critical” of the manner in which they have conducted themselves and the language in which their stay request was couched. He quoted CPR1.1 - the overriding objective (equal footing) and found in my favour. (I rather redundantly had all these ready as my worst case outcome was an adjournment.)

Award: full amount claimed plus interest at 8% plus costs. You can see why I’m in love. I only opened my file to refer to my costs. Judge Lethem quoted a family saying along the lines of "don't ask don't get" so I asked...

I am indebted to the Monarch Complaints Facebook page, 111KAB, PDoff and of course the incomparable Lord Professor (surely he should be a Duke by now?) Vauban-for-whom-insufficient-superlatives-exist. My case may not have been decided on the facts in the end, but without the support of these gentlemen and the other posters on the forum who I have quietly sponged off, I’d never have had the confidence to do this. Monarch will take it to the absolute wire so you have to grit your teeth and plough on.

The fizz is now open!

Skid_Marks

A great result......well done. Is the Judge there with you now?

razorsedge

ArianSandra wrote: »

My storytelling skills don’t rival those of Vauban and razorsedge but I hope there will be some entertainment for you in this tale.

I am indebted to the Monarch Complaints Facebook page, 111KAB, PDoff and of course the incomparable Lord Professor (surely he should be a Duke by now?) Vauban-for-whom-insufficient-superlatives-exist.
The fizz is now open!

Many congratulations! :beer:
It's all entertaining however told when the airlines get what they deserve for playing 'the game' instead of 'by the rules'. Your account is also far more precise and to the point then any of my ramblings.

I see you have picked up on my escalation up the Peerage scale, but I think a promotion to the top leaves no room for further improvement!!

P_Doff

Sandra, you tell a wonderful story. I am so delighted for you that I too am going to open a bottle!! Very well done indeed.

klint

Sandra, your story is a great encouragement for the rest of us. Congratulations!