Huzar appeal

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

I thought they were refused appeal?
Do you really think they will suceed? On what basis. Judge Elias statements were simple, plain and IMHO comletely correct.
As we all knew 3 years ago......

My understanding is that there are two routes to the Supreme Court: either appeal to the judges in the Court of Appeal (who generally refuse - after all, they're usually pretty confident in their findings) or petition the Supreme Court directly. I'm fairly certain that Jet2.com will go for this; after all, it buys them just a little more time.

The criteria for the court to accept an appeal (I think) are that there has to be a contestable point of law, of which there is significant public interest. So I would not be at all surprised to see if go forward on that basis.

I do though agree with JP. It feels a pretty slam dunk case - and the arguments have been well tested (the eagle eyed of you will have noticed that the Court in fact disagreed with HHJ Platts' reasoning).

I doff my hat to Jet2.com's Counsel, who was most impressive. But fundamentally, ordinary technical failures caused by the normal stresses of flying cannot reasonably be construed as extraordinary. I'd be very surprised if the Supreme Court came to another view.

batman44

I would have thought all the stayed cases would need to go back to the local court and ask for a stay pending a supreme court case. More time and expense for the airlines. Lets see what the airlines in general think of this, I am 99% sure they would have factored this in.

Vauban

Incidentally, I think I deserve a special prize since it transpires that the Court of Appeal's reasoning is largely the same argument that I pulled together for my own case, when a Monarch cockpit window spontaneously cracked on the ground. Monarch claimed that they could not predict this, so it was therefore extraordinary. My response was as follows:

The Claimant submits that the emergence of cracks in a stationary aircraft’s windscreen, whilst not necessarily predictable in each instance, does not fall into this category of “extraordinary circumstance”. The risk of such cracks is rather a phenomenon inherent in the normal exercise of an airline’s activity.

Indeed, as the Defendant submits in paragraph 8 of their defence: “cracks in the windscreen can arise without any initial indications given they are subject to extreme changes in temperature and altitude”. Such stresses, and consequent cracks, are therefore an inevitable consequence of the natural pressures to which aircraft flying at high altitude are necessarily subjected, and thus are clearly inherent in the airline’s activity.

I wonder if this qualifies me for the bench? Lord Justice Vauban does have a rather pleasant ring to it ...

Vauban

PS This headline is especially for you JP, from The Lawyer.com:

"2Birds Loses Aviation Case Over Delayed Passenger Compensation".

mrnasty

Here you go guys and girls


Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791 :-


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/791.html


It was obvious from the start. Jet 2 will try anything to get out of their obligations on this. I am glad that hopefully with put it to rest.

batman44

First they must get permission to appeal, this has been refused.

On what grounds? they lost? or the NEB Guidelines? The point of law is correct here and nothing the airlines can do will change as it stands. The regs true meaning of EC's are not inherent of the running of an airlines for them to carry on with this farce. Acts of God or third parties. The intention was as wallentin states to give examples or for instances where this meaning lies, ATC decisions etc. This is a joke and a spit in the eye for passengers on how far they will go to avoid paying out! they will put a twist on it just like the regs saying they are seeking clarity for the passenger, sorry it is clear to me and the judges in the High Court, you a wrong!

Vauban

batman44 wrote: »

First they must get permission to appeal, this has been refused.

But only by the Court of Appeal - Jet2.com can petition the Supreme Court directly, which is what they've said they will do: http://www.traveldailymedia.com/208645/jet2-to-take-delay-dispute-to-supreme-court/

batman44 wrote: »

On what grounds? they lost? or the NEB Guidelines? The point of law is correct here and nothing the airlines can do will change as it stands. The regs true meaning of EC's are not inherent of the running of an airlines for them to carry on with this farce. Acts of God or third parties. The intention was as wallentin states to give examples or for instances where this meaning lies, ATC decisions etc. This is a joke and a spit in the eye for passengers on how far they will go to avoid paying out! they will put a twist on it just like the regs saying they are seeking clarity for the passenger, sorry it is clear to me and the judges in the High Court, you a wrong!

You and I might think this. The Court of Appeal might think this. But the Supreme Court may take another view, and it is Jet2.com's right to petition them accordingly. Frustrating, I know.

stevemej123

Dart group PLC share price down 3.8% on the day.

nigelpm

stevemej123 wrote: »

Dart group PLC share price down 3.8% on the day.

It was down before the news broke through with the sector.

I very much doubt this will impact them further than the market had expected as presumably they had already put aside a provision for these legal costs and claims.

JPears

So I'm now looking at encouraging my daughter, subject to any appeal, to make a claim for the case I lost, as It was never actually decided in my case, if my daughter could be a joint claimant. Jet2 said no, and since they won then she didn't loose. is that logical?