MSE News: Flight delay compensation: More could claim thanks to new guidelines

results

Surely just because the heading states THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE ONLY Judges who don't seem to have a clue are going to say well if thats what the C.A.A. state it must be right, or at the very least will be swayed in their decision regarding ec's.
Hence Maghater losing his case and I expect many more will follow due to this document.

maghater

results wrote: »

Surely just because the heading states THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE ONLY Judges who don't seem to have a clue are going to say well if thats what the C.A.A. state it must be right, or at the very least will be swayed in their decision regarding ec's.
Hence Maghater losing his case and I expect many more will follow due to this document.

spot on with that

Star9272

results wrote: »

Surely just because the heading states THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE ONLY Judges who don't seem to have a clue are going to say well if thats what the C.A.A. state it must be right, or at the very least will be swayed in their decision regarding ec's.
Hence Maghater losing his case and I expect many more will follow due to this document.

What exactly is the point of this document? Who is it for? Who is it guiding?

111KAB

Star9272 wrote: »

What exactly is the point of this document? Who is it for? Who is it guiding?

Airlines trying to frighten off potential claimants.

results

Star9272 wrote: »

What exactly is the point of this document? Who is it for? Who is it guiding?

Yes exactly,, its for the airlines who are obviously going to use it in court cases and Judges are going to take notice of it no matter what is written at the top of it!

friendofbillw2

results wrote: »

Yes exactly,, its for the airlines who are obviously going to use it in court cases and Judges are going to take notice of it no matter what is written at the top of it!

If that's your attitude you may as well forget your claim now. But forgive me if I press on. Because this airlines' wish list has NO FORCE in law, and if the defendant in my claim tries to introduce it I will point that out with as much bluster as I can muster!

Vauban

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

If that's your attitude you may as well forget your claim now. But forgive me if I press on. Because this airlines' wish list has NO FORCE in law, and if the defendant in my claim tries to introduce it I will point that out with as much bluster as I can muster!

I agree. This interpretation is reinforced if you read the minutes of the meeting on 12 April at which these guidelines were discussed. These show that:

"Following the meeting, several NEBs made comments on the list and one NEB considered that also the document "best practice guidance note and flow chart" deserves further discussions. Therefore these documents are still to be revisited by the NEBs."

In other words, these "preliminary" guidelines are a discussion document only, with no legal force - or even political consensus. Wrap your cod and chips up in 'em, because that's all they're good for.

results

Vauban wrote: »

I agree. This interpretation is reinforced if you read the minutes of the meeting on 12 April at which these guidelines were discussed. These show that:

"Following the meeting, several NEBs made comments on the list and one NEB considered that also the document "best practice guidance note and flow chart" deserves further discussions. Therefore these documents are still to be revisited by the NEBs."

In other words, these "preliminary" guidelines are a discussion document only, with no legal force - or even political consensus. Wrap your cod and chips up in 'em, because that's all they're good for.

Thats all very well but it doesn't take away the fact that it exists and that Judges don't seem to know much about the law and from the cases that have actually got to court most aren't interested in finding out either. In most cases compensation has been given at the eleventh hour in case the airline lost, I think there will be much less of this happening as airlines rely on this document. I just think it's made it a lot more difficult to get compensation which was obviously the plan by the C.A.A.

111KAB

results wrote: »

Thats all very well but it doesn't take away the fact that it exists and that Judges don't seem to know much about the law and from the cases that have actually got to court most aren't interested in finding out either.

I think the Judge who ruled in my case would be both disappointed with your view and attitude. He was 'up to speed' and stood no nonsense from Monarch. He totally discounted their argument relying entirely upon Wallentin so I think he would find your comment "Judges don't seem to know much about the law" inflammatory. He had read through my claimant statement in detail, listened to both sides of the argument and delivered a succinct and, in my opinion, accurate appraisal.
I would be interested to receive your experience of 'your day in court' by a PM if you wish as together with colleagues who post on here we are looking at the wider aspects of delay claims through political (EU and UK) and CAA/NEB routes.

Vauban

results wrote: »

Thats all very well but it doesn't take away the fact that it exists and that Judges don't seem to know much about the law and from the cases that have actually got to court most aren't interested in finding out either. In most cases compensation has been given at the eleventh hour in case the airline lost, I think there will be much less of this happening as airlines rely on this document. I just think it's made it a lot more difficult to get compensation which was obviously the plan by the C.A.A.

Do I think it is a helpful document to claimants? Clearly, no. Do I think it adds a further opportunity for airlines to make mischief and try to misdirect the judge? Yes, I do. But do I conclude that this makes winning in court significantly harder? Not if you properly explain the context of the document to the judge - which is why your peremptory dismissal of my post above was unwise, if you'll let me be honest.

You linked Maghater losing his case to the emergence of this document. But - he'll correct me if I'm wrong - this document was never presented to his court: it didn't feature at all. He was unlucky, as JP and a small number of others have been, with a judge who was unsympathetic and not across the case law. But you can lose with such people whether this document exists or not. I share 111KAB's view that most judges are across the law, and apply it fairly: which is why most airlines are continuing to settle, on the proverbial steps of the court often, rather than have their arguments tested.

Bottom line? People lost before this document was published, and they will continue to do so. But many more will continue to win their cases too - either in front of a judge or just before. But the key will be to understand this latest ruse and have the arguments at hand to knock it down: the principal one being that it has no legal force.