MSE News: Flight delay compensation: Know your rights after Thomson defeated in court

Former_MSE_Guy

"If you've suffered a lengthy flight delay, don't be put off taking the airline to court to claim the compensation you're rightly owed..."

Read the full story:
Flight delay compensation: Know your rights after Thomson defeated in court

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

VT82

Does anyone think this will mean Thomson will now cave to people who have received the ubiquitous 'you didn't submit your claim within 2 years' rebuttal?

nigelpm

From the article :

Thomson, in particular, is often accused of not playing ball. Many MoneySavers have reported it will only consider claims about flights going back two years – which is incorrect, under the EU rules.

Actually this isn't strictly the case as Thomson are appealing it.

Judgement will be passed down next year.

Leone100

My family were delayed 5 hours on a flight from newcastle to Florida in 2010. I wrote to thomson claiming compensation and have just received a reply from them today saying National law states I had to claim within 2 years, therefore I do not have a claim. Does anyone have any advice as to where to go from here?

Thanks

Grumpelstiltskin

Leone start here and read this thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4384699

richardw

Read the full Thomson thread Leone100

CtrLng

Centipede100 wrote: »

Since the matter is now subject to an appeal, no.

If the ECJ has already ruled in the More case that 261/2004 falls outside the scope of the Montreal Convention and specifically stated that the time limits applicable are those of the limitation of actions in each member state (6 years for E&W and 5 Years for Scotland) then on what grounds are Thomson appealing?

It is my understanding that the ECJ is the highest court in Europe so if they make a specific ruling on a piece of EU legislation, not a domestic regulation or statute, then surely a domestic court of a member state such as the Court of Appeal for England & Wales has no authority to either question the ECJ's precedent that has already been set or make a separate ruling that is in conflict with the ruling that the ECJ has already made.

Is this not challenging the supremacy of the ECJ on its own Community legislation which cannot be done?

If people can keep challenging the decisions of the ECJ n domestic courts then what is the point of the ECJ if it is not the final authority on European Law?

DTDfanBoy

You seem to be forgetting that there is more legislation in the EU than just 261/2004. The appeal may well be based on precedent set by other EU legislation.

No one is challenging the supremacy of EU law, if the court of appeal has any doubts about their interpretation of EU legislation they will request a preliminary ruling from the ECJ to clarify the matter.

There is reasonably strict protocol in regards to allowing an appeal, so you can be sure that there is a valid legal question to be answered.

I'm certainly looking forward to finding out what Thomson are basing their appeal on, chances are it will be pretty weak, especially as every other airline legal team has found no issues with the way 261 and the Montreal relate to each other, but you never know they may actually have an Ace up their sleeve, only time will tell.

JPears

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting that there

There is reasonably strict protocol in regards to allowing an appeal, so you can be sure that there is a valid legal question to be answered.

I'm certainly looking forward to finding out what Thomson are basing their appeal on, chances are it will be pretty weak, especially as every other airline legal team has found no issues with the way 261 and the Montreal relate to each other, but you never know they may actually have an Ace up their sleeve, only time will tell.

Not stictly true as presumably there is a time limit of 7 days where you have to apply for appeal, even though you may not have actually established the grounds for that appeal. ie Thomson may have applied for an appeal, the get their foot in the door before its shut firmly in place., but may not actually push the door open to go in.

DTDfanBoy

There is a huge difference between applying for an appeal, and an appeal being allowed

JPears

My point exactly. In fact there are huge steps between applying for appeal, having grounds for an appeal and winning the appeal