Huzar appeal

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Cue all legal claims being stayed until CoA rules definitively on Huzar sometime late this year or early next... Airline legal depts succeed in wearing down another large percentage of claimants!

I agree it will be nice to have certainty over Huzar but before Huzar was appealed we already had a pretty successful judgment called Wallentin-Hermann on which most informed claimants based their claim and on which a near 90% success rate was reported....:(

Well up to a point, Lord Copper.

An unambiguous and precedent setting judgement would have real value. Wallentin is precedent setting, but regrettably not unambiguous (its meaning is clear enough, but is not written as helpfully as it might have been, in my view, which has allowed the airlines to sow confusion).

The CAA's refusal to engage in meaningful enforcement is fundamentally permitted by these ambiguities. A clear UK Court of Appeal judgement will destroy the NEB list, and lay the Authority open to obvious judicial review if it does not take errant airlines to task.

And - though you may dismiss this as overly optimistic - the airlines will find it hard to refuse most claims, as they do at the moment, for delays involving technical failure. If this is right, far many people will be compensated that currently were before the stays began. Because whilst 90% of those starting legal action were successful, I reckon 95% of those who applied for compensation and got the brush off never began litigation.

David_e

mr.d wrote: »

Anyone know whats the average pay out for flight delays

No-one publishes this information so any figure is likely to be some kind of guess work. I used 400 Euro in a post last week which was a figure I have seen quoted but I can't recall where.

Of course, airlines will have succeeded in agreeing compensation for some passengers less than the amount strictly due. They also will often couch in terms of the payment being made for goodwill purposes without admitting liability.

CobyBenson

mr.d wrote: »

hello guys,

Anyone know whats the average pay out for flight delays

King regards

Mr.D

Most people get 400 Euros, however the actual average is 420 Euros (Circa £345).

600 28%
400 47%
300 2%
250 22%

steve1500

sging1 wrote: »

Thomas Cook are only asking for “stays” with all cases for three months with the courts. If the appeal is granted is it feasable to be completed within that timescale or will they just ask for an extension. Mine was supposed to be in court on the 14th January so the clock is ticking allready.

TC had asked to stay mine back in November, but as previously reported, they folded in December, money in Bank for me, wife a daughter, mid Jan, & out 2 days later - ironically a huge chunk to TC

Tyzap

batman44 wrote: »

Here is Aviation law's thinking on the Huzar appeal, a little arrogant if you ask me. lets hope Bott & Co can do thousands justice. They should pay up in the first place or the there should be a deffinative on EC's. There is also an article by another law firm about the NEB's Guidelines, again the thinking is this is some kind of legal thing that should be taken into concideration.

AV Law

Introduction
Low cost carrier Jet2.com Limited is set to appeal a decision from the Manchester County Court which purports to redefine the defence available to airlines pursuant to Article 5(3) of EC Regulation 261/2004[URL="file:///C:/Users/Danielle/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/KYHHYOXQ/Ronald%20Huzar%20v%20Jet2%20com%20Limited%20-%20Appeal.doc#_ftn1"][1][/URL]. The appeal concerns a single issue of law important to the availability of the “extraordinary circumstances” defence provided by article 5(3) of Regulation 261, namely whether delay due to an unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable technical problem can amount to an “extraordinary circumstance” for the purposes of the defence provided by that article.
Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 provides that:

“An operating carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken“.

The interpretation of Article 5(3) has been the subject of a number of cases such as Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia[URL="file:///C:/Users/Danielle/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/KYHHYOXQ/Ronald%20Huzar%20v%20Jet2%20com%20Limited%20-%20Appeal.doc#_ftn2"][2][/URL] and Eglitis v Air Baltic[URL="file:///C:/Users/Danielle/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/KYHHYOXQ/Ronald%20Huzar%20v%20Jet2%20com%20Limited%20-%20Appeal.doc#_ftn3"][3][/URL] which have attempted to clarify the language of the Regulation. Following the ECJ’s decisions in these cases, it was established that the article 5(3) defence has two limbs, namely: (1) cancellation (or qualifying long delay) caused by extraordinary circumstances (2) which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Article 5(3) is the only defence available to a carrier in respect of a claim for compensation pursuant to article 7 of Regulation 261 in the case of a cancellation or a qualifying long delay.
Background
Mr Huzar’s claim was based on a flight from Malaga – Costa del Sol Airport (AGP) to Manchester Airport (MAN) on 26 October 2011. Flight LS810 was scheduled to depart Malaga at 18.25 hrs (local time) and arrive at Manchester Airport at 20.25 hrs (local time) the same day. While the Aircraft was in-flight en-route to Malaga on 26 October 2011, the flight crew reported that the left engine fuel valve ‘closed’ advisor light became illuminated, recording a discrepancy between the selected state of the valve and its actual state indicating a defect in the fuel shutoff valve. Valves are installed in the fuel system to provide a means for shutting off the fuel flow for tank and engine selection, cross- feed and for fuel transfer.
On this basis, Jet2.com arranged for a replacement part to be ready at AGP when the flight landed. However, on arrival, and once the replacement part fitted, it was discovered that this did not rectify the issue. Further investigation confirmed that there was a wiring defect in the fuel valve circuit and the wiring between the fuselage pressure seal and the valve needed to be replaced. Given that there was no available spare wiring at AGP, replacement wiring along with a specialist engineer were dispatched from the Leeds Bradford hanger. Following rectification of the issue, and once functionality checks had been performed the aircraft was declared serviceable at 18.10 hrs (UTC) on 27 October 2011. As a result the flight suffered an arrival delay of circa 27 hours. The random failure of wiring to the fuel valve was both unforeseeable and unexpected. Further, as the technical defect only became evident in-flight en-route to AGP, it was something entirely outside Jet2.com’s control.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

I won't comment on the whole document but suffice to say, the paragraph entitled "Background" is seriously inaccurate.

Not really what you would expect from such a company!;)

JPears

Perhaps you should drop them a line pointing out the error of their ways?
That they can't get the basics facts correct would cast serious doubt on the validity of their whole view.
Another specious offering from the aviation industry?

Mark2spark

CobyBenson wrote: »

If the court flips the bird to the birds then they can ask to have the application for permission to be heard in person (as opposed to on paper, which is what's happening at the moment).

*Who* exactly is submitting paperwork on behalf of Mr Huzar? Or does it not work like that? Is it just the judgement of HHJ Platts that is *the defence*, and that Jet 2 have to challenge that reasoning?

It's just it seems to me that, unless there is someone there to advocate on behalf of Mr Huzar/the general public interest, then Jet 2 might get away with muddying the waters, quoting CAA/NEB guidance and stuff as if it's fact.

Mark2spark

Right, I've taken a step back and reconsidered. I take it that, at this time, only a paper submission to detail the validity of the appeal going forward, or not, is the consideration.
*Not* the merit of the appeal.
Correctomundo?

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

Right, I've taken a step back and reconsidered. I take it that, at this time, only a paper submission to detail the validity of the appeal going forward, or not, is the consideration.
*Not* the merit of the appeal.
Correctomundo?

Yes. This is to decide whether they are allowed the appeal. Given there is an obvious point of law, it seems v likely (Coby said as much earlier). Mr. Huzar is not alone, however, but has a certain Lancastrian law firm representing his interests ...

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

Yes. This is to decide whether they are allowed the appeal. Given there is an obvious point of law, it seems v likely (Coby said as much earlier). Mr. Huzar is not alone, however, but has a certain Lancastrian law firm representing his interests ...

Wow, could it be happening? my god the world is falling apart! could it be Vauban has make a mistake? We will have to take his hat away for a while Lol. Lancastrian -should that not be Cheshire?