extraordinary circumstances?

111KAB

EvansAboveWales wrote: »

I'. Any advice most welcome before I complete court papers tomorrow.......

Have them on both counts 1) technical problem is not an extraordinary circumstance and 2) did not occur on your flight.
Hit them with both barrels.

111KAB

EvansAboveWales wrote: »

....... but which do you think I should prioritise, as I'm a bit concerned one could prejudice the other if I get it wrong?

Go for the toilet first as that should get the Judge's attention then wade in with it didn't even happen on my flight. Neither will prejudice the other as airline are 'wrong' on both counts.

bazaar_2

111KAB wrote: »

Go for the toilet first as that should get the Judge's attention then wade in with it didn't even happen on my flight. Neither will prejudice the other as airline are 'wrong' on both counts.

gotta second that 111kab, oue EC s are hard landing on previous flight, ( my answer is going to be not on our flight, but pertinantly landing is an inherent part of the air carriers business, unless they have managed to invent time warp or transportation from dimensions. , Id really love to put that on my witness statement but dont want to pee the court off too much. Just enough to give them a wry smile

martin1372

I have posted before and have raised an action at Hamilton Sheriff Court. The court hearing is on 8/8/13 and this is Thomas Cook's defence:
Explained and averred that the aircraft suffered from an electronic module sudden failure and there were no previous reports on T/O CONFIG warning system. Explained that an electronic module sudden failure is an extraordinary circumstance in terms of EU regulation 261/2004. Explained and averred that the defect could not have been foreseen. Further explained and averred that is terms of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention 1999 the carrier is not liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that is and its servants took all measures that could be reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to takes such measures. Explained and averred that in any event in terms of Article 35 of the Montreal Convention 1999 the Pursuer's claim is time barred.
This has been sent to me as Thomas Cook's defence by Simpson & Marwick solicitors.
Any opinions and advice would be appreciated.

blondmark

martin1372 wrote: »

I have posted before and have raised an action at Hamilton Sheriff Court. The court hearing is on 8/8/13 and this is Thomas Cook's defence:
Explained and averred that the aircraft suffered from an electronic module sudden failure and there were no previous reports on T/O CONFIG warning system. Explained that an electronic module sudden failure is an extraordinary circumstance in terms of EU regulation 261/2004. Explained and averred that the defect could not have been foreseen. Further explained and averred that is terms of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention 1999 the carrier is not liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that is and its servants took all measures that could be reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to takes such measures. Explained and averred that in any event in terms of Article 35 of the Montreal Convention 1999 the Pursuer's claim is time barred.
This has been sent to me as Thomas Cook's defence by Simpson & Marwick solicitors.
Any opinions and advice would be appreciated.

Well you advise and aver back that these technical issues stem from events which, by their nature or origin, are inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned (see Wallentin-Hermann). Advise and aver further that you did not make a claim under the Montreal Convention and therefore the Convention's inherent limitation does not apply. Advise and aver further that they should not waste their money on hopeless defences that have no real prospect of success.

bazaar_2

EvansAboveWales wrote: »

Partial Success! AESA have written to me saying TC did not respond to their request for a report of the delay. This, together with the evidence I submitted to them has resulted in them stating EC have not been proved and recommend TC pay up. I know TC are not bound by this but if it does go to court, this surely strengthens my case. It's not over yet I know, but I'm glad AESA are showing more interest in these cases than the CAA. It took 3 months from writing to AESA to receiving this response - not bad considering how long CAA are taking only to refer you back to the airlines.

it all helps and you should refer to it in your witness statement as well.