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

13»

Replies

  • JPearsJPears Forumite
    4.9K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    scandalous, nay specious at least!
    Again Thomnson are trying to make a mockery of the EC and Reg 261/2004.

    By their reasoning, even if it is within 2 years, then all claims under Reg261/2004 are in effect under the Montreal Convention. The EC states quite clearly, IIRC, that the Montreal Convention was inadequate in addressing the problems caused by denied/cancelled/delays and 261/200 would operate in addition to the Montreal Convention terms?
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
  • I did post this on another thread but this is the letter received from Thomsons so I think i can be sure that they have dropped the EC thing.

    It would seem that Thomson Airways have had a change of heart though as originally they defended my claim on both the EC and 2 year limitation and have now withdrawn from the EC argument and are relying purely on the outcome of the Dawson case appeal which is based only on the 2 year limitation which in my mind seems to be unlikely to be anything but in favour of the claimant in view of the strength of the case and the professional representation.

    I thought I would reproduce the letter to the District Judge from Thomson Airways for the forum.

    Dear Sirs

    The issue in dispute between the parties in this matter relates to the applicable limitation period to be applied for claims for compensation under Article 7 of the Denied Boarding Regulation (EC 261/2004) as well as the Extraordinary Circumstances argument; however we have made a commercial decision to withdraw this argument.

    The said issue in dispute revolves around application of European, International and domestic law in respect of delay in the international carriage of passengers.

    The same point that is in dispute between the parties in this matter was heard in the County Court claim Dawson v Thomson Airways (Claim No 2QZ57244, Cambridge County Court)

    While HHJ Yelton found against the defendant in that matter, due to the complexity of potential public interest of the argument, he gave permission to the Court of Appeal.

    The defendant has recently made the decision to proceed with an appeal on the Dawson decision.

    The defendant now believes that the claim should be stayed until such time that the Court of Appeal gives judgement in this matter. The Defendant submits that this is the best course of action on the following basis

    1. The Court of Appeal will be able to review the argument in far greater detail then would be possible in this case.

    2. The Court of Appeal decision will be a precedent and will allow the lower court to apply said decision.[/I]

    Yours faithfully...


    I hope this is of some use and certainly makes me feel hopeful of a positive outcome.



    I will post the outcome of next Mondays (23rd) hearing as soon as possible.
  • Having spent all weekend swotting up ready for my court appearence this week I am feeling pretty confident about my case law and counter arguements. I'm now bemused to understand how the appeal by Thomson on the Dawson case can work...it just doesn't stack up. I'm not a legal proffessional but even to me it seems rediculous...

    They are desperate..

    If they stay my case I'm happy that this will get sorted in May...
  • P_DoffP_Doff Forumite
    76 Posts
    tonxy22 wrote: »

    They are desperate..

    If they stay my case I'm happy that this will get sorted in May...

    And you should get 6 more months interest.
  • Hi folks, We have just returned from Turkey. On arrival at the airport our flight was displayed as delayed, then a short time later the display board showed the flight as cancelled. In short we were due to fly at 23.35 and ended up leaving the next day at around 15.30. We were put up in a hotel from 04.30 and picked up at 11.00 to travel back to the airport. I have heard various statements regarding claims from other passengers at the time, but can anyone advise me if we are in with a shout of a claim? The original flight was diverted to Venice or Vienna because of a fire on board (allegedly). and we were provided with a voucher at the airport for refreshments which involved a bottle of Fanta, Coke or two bottles of water. (£3.00) Any assistance would be most welcome. Pete.:o
  • 111KAB111KAB Forumite
    3.6K Posts
    flynny1387 - should be on EasyJet thread but sounds like you have a valid claim. Whether you were on a cancelled or delayed flight really doesn't matter in respect of your 261/2004 regulation claim. In addition (if you have receipts) you should be entitled to 'Duty of Care' expenditure. Claim from EasyJet accordingly - unsure of your destination but Great Circle mapper will advise distance and armed with a view of 261/2004 you can work out what is due to you.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides