Huzar appeal

Tyzap

Vauban wrote: »

I am informed by good sources that an application to appeal has been made. If accepted by the higher court, this would potentially put all claims involving a technical fault once again on ice.

Yes, I can confirm that Jet2 have applied for leave to appeal the decision by HH Judge Platts.

As others have said, the stakes are getting very high for Jet2 now and having been backed into a corner they have decided to come out fighting, again.

Please also see post 72 in the EU/Botts claim thread (cannot post the link yet) for background information on this case.

Mark2spark

Tyzap wrote: »

Yes, I can confirm that Jet2 have applied for leave to appeal the decision by HH Judge Platts.

Mr Huzar, I presume? :T

Post 72 link:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63683954&postcount=72

Tyzap

I'd love to know how Thomson got to know about this so early as it was not in the public domain at that time as far as I am aware.

Thanks for posting the link for me.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

This is a very hot potato for the airlines since you won your appeal and especially so given the judge's comments.

Anything of legal significance concerning 261/2004 will be debated by the major UK airlines behind the scenes as it impacts them all equally.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jet2 had already discussed whether an appeal had a majority of airlines in favour before so doing since going it alone without knowing what the potential consequences might be across the airline sector might have left them with a few less 'friends'!

Yes, I wonder to what extent the airlines are colluding in their approach to this issue. I suspect the NEB's "guidelines" were a joint effort, for example.

Interesting to speculate whether Jet2 sought the consent of the others to pursue this appeal. I suspect they have no real option, given a) the unambiguous nature of the judgement; b) its wide applicability to almost all technical faults; and c) the fact that - though it sets no precedent - it is persuasive enough to most District Judges. The anecdotal evidence suggests the Huzar was very effective in court.

Informed sources suggest that it is very likely that the application to appeal will succeed - though this may take a few more months. And then perhaps the better part of the year to be actually heard.

But none of this changes the fact that, in my view, the airlines are simply playing for time. I don't think anyone credible believes that Jet2 can overturn Huzar - Wallentin is not perfect, but its intent is clear enough. So this effort to put-off the inevitable, by appealing the Huzar judgement, is merely a strategy of desperation. The writing is very clearly on the wall ... :wall:

richardw

Tyzap wrote: »

I'd love to know how Thomson got to know about this so early as it was not in the public domain at that time as far as I am aware...

Perhaps a, little, Bird told them?

Notgoingaway

Vauban wrote: »

Perhaps, but they have to show these things genuinely happened. According to a letter from the UK airline chiefs to the Transport Minister in 2009, about 80% of delays are technical in origin (and you'll note their admission that they are not extraordinary, following Wallentin). So appealing Huzar really would be a last desperate throw of the dice, with significant implications if they lose: http://www.barin.nl/docs/DeniedBoardingUkCEOletterReECJ19nov09verdict8Dec09.pdf

Would this be suitable to use in the court bundle ? Considering they admit technical delays are not extraordinary.

Vauban

Up to you. But it's in mine ...

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

Yes, I wonder to what extent the airlines are colluding in their approach to this issue.

I would estimate somewhere between completely and totally. The letter you kindly posted dates back 4 years and I imagine the signatories have been holding regular meetings to maintain the party lie - sorry, line - ever since.

I assume that all the major airlines will be contributing to Jet2's appeal costs and that they will be engaging the most eminent/expensive QC they can find. They will need to because I can't imagine how any appeal court judge - or even a first year law student come to that - could possibly find the Huzar judgment anything other than a correct interpretation of the law.

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

Up to you. But it's in mine ...

As the letter is signed by the Chief Executive of the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, I had a look at their membership. It includes Virgin Atlantic so I will include the letter in my court papers when the time comes.

Here's the full list of members:

http://www.bar-uk.org/membership/full_members_1.htm

It's also signed by the Secretary General of The British Air Transport Association ("the voice of UK airlines") whose members are listed here:

http://www.bata.uk.com/membership/bata-members/

The BATA website has a presentation:

http://www.bata.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ash-9-Barham.pdf

which includes the following helpful quote (made in relation to problems caused a few years back with the Icelandic volcano):

"This is a situation which is causing immense difficulties for passengers travelling throughout Europe. It can be considered a very exceptional circumstance. Nevertheless it is important to remind passengers and airlines that EU passenger rights do apply in this situation." European Commission Vice President Siim Kallas15/4/10

JPears

David_e wrote: »

I would estimate somewhere between completely and totally. The letter you kindly posted dates back 4 years and I imagine the signatories have been holding regular meetings to maintain the party lie - sorry, line - ever since.

I assume that all the major airlines will be contributing to Jet2's appeal costs and that they will be engaging the most eminent/expensive QC they can find. They will need to because I can't imagine how any appeal court judge - or even a first year law student come to that - could possibly find the Huzar judgment anything other than a correct interpretation of the law.

In this appeal, and Dawson, who takes responsibilty (and costs) for "defence" of the appeal ie Messrs Dawson and Huzar? I presume there is representation from both sides, not just the apealant?
Or does the "state" or courts adopt the status of defending against the appeal?