We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Anyone gone to court in Scotland
martin1372
Posts: 56 Forumite
I am due to attend a preliminary hearing against Thomas Cook on 8th August. I am keen to hear from anyone who has taken an airline to court in Scotland.
This is TCs 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 is TCs 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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards