Court Failure Thread

Bob_the_Saver

JPears wrote: »

Of course the whole Small claims procedure is heavily stacked against the litigant

Heavily stacked!

Balance of probability.

Mmmmmm

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I thought that delays to YOUR flight as a result of a delay to a previous flight were not classed as EC's under the regulations?

What ever caused the delay to the previous flight must be totally disregarded.

willhollis18

Sorry to hear of this news JPears. My case is coming up for hearing on the 24th July with similar circumstances (a delay from the previous sector impacting my return flight). Jet2 are using a rare occurring tech issue in their defense so we have similar cases.

Is it just the £85 which you are required to pay as 'costs'?

Thanks

Will

anonnymouse

Do you know if you will now have to pay Jet2's legal costs & expenses?

If you do then it makes me a little nervous...

If not then surely it must be costing them more to defend these claims than it would to simply pay up...??

JPears

Centipede100 wrote: »

Excellent choice of wine might I say JPears!

Your case highlights what I have stated several times in the forum that the result on the day more accurately reflects the lack of knowledge of certain DJs of EU case law and its practical application. In other words, one enters something of a lottery dependent on who is appointed to hear the case.

This leads in some cases, yours included, to the wrong decision being made in law and I can foresee another occasion where a litigant will be successful where the defence offered is similar to the one put up by Jet2 in your own case.

But well done on taking a stand and giving an insight into the hearing for others to consider what they might do in similar circumstances.

Centi, thanks for your support, and you are correct in court lottery observations.
I am more than willing to help others for their sake and to gain some satisfaction & re-wenge (Blackadder reference )

stavros42

Just a thought if the DJ has erred in fact or law is there not grounds for an appeal to this decision.

JPears

Ultimately is the judge's decision on the findings of fact. He is effectively deciding who is correct on the particular point of law in each particular case.
Obviously I don't agree with his decisions for a mulitude of reasons and I will be sending a written response when I receive the written decision. I don't believe there will be grounds for appeal.
Even if there were, the compo involved is not worth the risk. And I can't be arsed. I've had my fill of the one sided legal system for a while.;)

richardw

Centipede100 wrote: »

....... the result on the day more accurately reflects the lack of knowledge of certain DJs of EU case law and its practical application.....

I get the impression that the DJ just hadn't done their homework and thus weren't up to the job at the hearing, which is just reprehensible.

maghater

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

Heavily stacked!

Balance of probability.

Mmmmmm

never mind balance of probability, I thought the airline had to prove it had done everything short of making an intolerable sacrifice. Is it the claimants fault that flight engineers took hours to fix a simple electrical problem. Reading the regs, Sturgeon, Wallentin, C294/10 to me it looks like the ECJ is saying yea [EMAIL="sh@t"]sh@t[/EMAIL] happens, you as airlines just have to deal with it. The airlines therefore have two options, either to build some spare capacity into their timetables, and crew rostas, or operate with the minimum of crew and flog the aircraft to death. It is obviously economically tempting for them to choose the latter, and as such they should be prepared to face the consequences when things go wrong

JPears

maghater wrote: »

never mind balance of probability, I thought the airline had to prove it had done everything short of making an intolerable sacrifice. Is it the claimants fault that flight engineers took hours to fix a simple electrical problem. Reading the regs, Sturgeon, Wallentin, C294/10 to me it looks like the ECJ is saying yea sh@t happens, you as airlines just have to deal with it. The airlines therefore have two options, either to build some spare capacity into their timetables, and crew rostas, or operate with the minimum of crew and flog the aircraft to death. It is obviously economically tempting for them to choose the latter, and as such they should be prepared to face the consequences when things go wrong

I put this precise point across as strongly as I could but the Judge thought otherwise. The Regulation has been in effect for 6 years before my delay, plenty of time for Jet2 to change their working practices. Like you say their choice, make the changes to reduce possible delays - like use newer aircraft, train aircrew to fly both types of aircraft in your fleet ie 737 AND 757. Have back up aircrew available at less then 2.5 hour notice, don't try to turn around an aircraft in less than 45 minutes, in a fleet of 51, old, relatively cheaply leased aircraft have a greater redundany to allow replacement. Jet2 can certainly afford it with ever increasing profits year on year. Can you believe the solicitor would NOT accept that 20 old aircraft would develop more faults due to age than 5 year old aircraft - common sense was clearly lacking in that hearing. He then had the temerity to suggest that new aircraft such as 787 could be more unreliable! Yes because it had a badly designed and manufactured battery, not because of its age. I do wonder at the intelligence/audacity/ignorance of some folk.:cool:
When I receive the written judgement it will certainly be getting a reply. Won't do any good, I don't even expect Judge to reply, except it will make me feel better:o