Court Failure Thread

lyndac40

stavros42 wrote: »

Maybe it's time for that precedent to be set and all the winning posters( or anybody else for that matter)can contribute to a fund to fight you're case. I for one would be willing to contribute to this, just an idea.

Hi Jp,

Sorry to hear you lost your case, I to would be willing to contribute to your appeal. After all the help you have given people on this forum I am sure a few would be willing to help with your fight.

Lynda xxx

Vauban

I wonder if this chap is worth at least a chat with, JP? http://www.air-passenger-rights.co.uk/contact/contact-mike-rattenbury-solicitor/

JPears

Thanks Vauban, might have a look.
I got the official case dismissed notice today 12th June dated 7th.
Just 2 lines - 1. Case dismissed. 2. No costs awarded.
Is this normal? Surely I should receive a full findings of fact from the judge?
How can I assess grounds for appeal without the facts/reasoning/
Also NO informatiuon from court on appeals procedure.
Very poor. Phone call to court tomorrow me thinks.

richardw

JPears wrote: »

.. Phone call to court tomorrow me thinks.

If you phoned the court, what did they say?

JPears

Watch this space...

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Watch this space...

He's such a terrible tease ...:D

richardw

Thanks, will wait and see.

friendofbillw2

Another failure to report I'm afraid.

The judge accepted the Monarch barrister's point that a rudder failure on the inbound sector the day before, leading to my flight being delayed 8 hours the following day, was 'extraordinary circumstances'.

She also read Wallentin to mean that the part about 'all measures short of intolerable sacrifices' related to the airline preventing the technical defect from happening, but said she could find nothing to suggest any requirements in the regulation or subsequent case law to require the airline to go to such lengths to keep the delay to a minimum once extraordinary circumstances were in effect. She effectively accepted that they had done what they could in the circumstances.

I disagree on both counts, of course, but that's the 'litigation risk' in action. I will not be appealing.

JPears

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Another failure to report I'm afraid.

The judge accepted the Monarch barrister's point that a rudder failure on the inbound sector the day before, leading to my flight being delayed 8 hours the following day, was 'extraordinary circumstances'.

She also read Wallentin to mean that the part about 'all measures short of intolerable sacrifices' related to the airline preventing the technical defect from happening, but said she could find nothing to suggest any requirements in the regulation or subsequent case law to require the airline to go to such lengths to keep the delay to a minimum once extraordinary circumstances were in effect. She effectively accepted that they had done what they could in the circumstances.

I disagree on both counts, of course, but that's the 'litigation risk' in action. I will not be appealing.

Shocking, truly shocking. What do we, the taxpayer pay these "learned" judges for? I bet the Monarch barrister was as suprised as you

Dr_Watson

JPears wrote: »

Shocking, truly shocking. What do we, the taxpayer pay these "learned" judges for? I bet the Monarch barrister was as suprised as you

Terrible news indeed, I feel for you friendofbillw2.
Unfortunately another case of a not so learned judge.
These cases do seem rare but won't help how you are feeling right now.
You, I and many others on this forum know you were and still are right. Shame the judge didn't.