Huzar appeal

legal_magpie

Highly unlikely as they were different Judges.

millsmum

when do we find out the result?

Mark2spark

millsmum wrote: »

when do we find out the result?

When they announce it :rotfl:

MGOR

Just curious but what is the proceedure for the Court to report their decision. Do all the parties have to attend Court again or is it published and then posted / emailed to the parties?

legal_magpie

It varies. The judgment has to be formally "handed down" but it isn't always necessary for the parties to attend especially if there are no consequential issues such as costs.
The Court usually sets a date for this but often sends a draft of the judgment in advance to the solicitors but this is very strictly embargoed and any solicitor who revealed the contents in advance (other than to his own client) would be in deep doo doo (as would the client).

batman44

I know its not good to speculate but the suspense is killing me but I reckon something on the lines of-

EC's are only - Acts of God (Nature)-Third Party Actions (Totally beyond the control of the airline)

Technical faults including repairs are under the control of the ailines and are not EC's.

Airlines must look at the possibility of accomodating the costs for this by a levy included in the ticket price, with no more than admin fees so airline cannot make substantial profit from this.

They could go radical altogether and dispense with the get out clause of EC's, hence back to the EU for ratification.


If the decision is against Jet2 i suspect they will appeal to a higher court, more delays.

JPears

The point that seems to be lost in the fog of time and procrastination by the airline industry is that rg 261/2004 was clearly laid down by the EU to improve the passengers lot by reducing cancellations, denied boarding and delays. Something that can ONLY be done by the airlines improving their business model, their logistics model and in most cases, massively improving their customer services. The compensation payout is clearly, IMHO, intended as a stick to "encourage" the airlines. The stats show that they have clearly failed to do this over the past 9, yes, 9 years. And are now whinging and worming their way out of the lternative ie paying passengers compensation.
Disingenuous to say the least.

batman44

2 Birds-

On 27 January 2014 we reported on the pending appeal in the case of Huzar v Jet2.com, in which we act for the Defendant airline. The case addresses the question whether an aircraft technical defect can qualify as "extraordinary circumstances" for the purposes of Regulation 261.
Leave to appeal was granted earlier this year and the appeal itself was heard before the Court of Appeal on 22 May 2014. Judgment is expected in July, and we will report on the outcome when the judgment is available.
We will also cover the appeal in Dawson v Thomson Airways which addresses the question of the limitation period applicable to Regulation 261 proceedings, and was heard by a different panel of the Court of Appeal shortly before Huzar.

Vauban

Whilst I hate to be a pedant, I feel compelled to correct our avian friends. Precision is not a dirty word.

The purpose of the Huzar hearing was not to establish "whether an aircraft technical defect can qualify as 'extraordinary circumstances' for the purposes of Regulation 261". The Wallentin judgement of 2008 already established that technical faults can be extraordinary (or produced by circumstances that are extraordinary).

What Huzar is about, surely, is not whether but under what circumstances can technical defects be said to constitute, or be caused by, something extraordinary. HH Judge Platts took a strictly minimalist view, using the formulation in Wallentin. Airlines - supported by the CAA - press for a maximalist interpretation, in which concepts such as predictability and maintenance are injected into the mix.

I hope very much that the Court of Appeal gives clear and comprehensive guidance, which will allow claimants to make a claim with confidence and force the airlines to stop evading their responsibilities under the legislation.

I expect to see the former; I am less certain about the latter. A belief that airlines will finally do the right thing is perhaps, if you indulge me the pun, completely for the birds.

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

Whilst I hate to be a pedant, I feel compelled to correct our avian friends. Precision is not a dirty word.

The purpose of the Huzar hearing was not to establish "whether an aircraft technical defect can qualify as 'extraordinary circumstances' for the purposes of Regulation 261". The Wallentin judgement of 2008 already established that technical faults can be extraordinary (or produced by circumstances that are extraordinary).

What Huzar is about, surely, is not whether but under what circumstances can technical defects be said to constitute, or be caused by, something extraordinary. HH Judge Platts took a strictly minimalist view, using the formulation in Wallentin. Airlines - supported by the CAA - press for a maximalist interpretation, in which concepts such as predictability and maintenance are injected into the mix.

I hope very much that the Court of Appeal gives clear and comprehensive guidance, which will allow claimants to make a claim with confidence and force the airlines to stop evading their responsibilities under the legislation.

I expect to see the former; I am less certain about the latter. A belief that airlines will finally do the right thing is perhaps, if you indulge me the pun, completely for the birds.

Once again Vauban you hit the nail on the head, perhaps they needed to be reminded of that!
I am more interested in the date they say the decision will be made, July. Then for me the judge gives 28 days to contact back if it is not settled or i wish to continue and then a date will be set for another month or two after that.

No matter what i am going all the way as Wallentin covers my problem, a substantial defect in the engine turbine! as was with our aircraft.