Huzar appeal

richardw

Interesting that BATA includes Gates Aviation, headed by Sean Gates, who started Gates and Partners who used to act for easyJet in many cases.

David_e

JPears wrote: »

In this appeal, and Dawson, who takes responsibilty (and costs) for "defence" of the appeal ie Messrs Dawson and Huzar?

Good question. I assumed, in the Huzar case, it would be Mr Huzar as the appeal is against the case than he won. (Assume likewise for the Dawson case.) It's more obviously unfair when you have the (presumably) massed ranks (and deep pockets) of the airline industry vs the passenger 'in the street'. I'm not sure if the appelant's costs can be awarded against the original claimant or not.

JPears wrote: »

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?

I imagine the appeal is similar to the original case where both sides set out their cases. There may be differences in some of the procedures, as the Court of Appeal is getting quite serious.

dxc_chappie

JPears wrote: »

In this appeal, and Dawson, who takes responsibilty (and costs) for "defence" of the appeal ie Messrs Dawson and Huzar?

In the Dawson case permission was given to appeal on terms that no costs would be sought from the claimant (para 29 of the ruling).

David_e

dxc_chappie wrote: »

In the Dawson case permission was given to appeal on terms that no costs would be sought from the claimant (para 29 of the ruling).

Interesting, thanks. I hope something similar has been agreed on the Huzar appeal.

JPears

dxc_chappie wrote: »

In the Dawson case permission was given to appeal on terms that no costs would be sought from the claimant (para 29 of the ruling).

But the original claimant, in defending the judgement he/she has received, is going to run up costs in countering that appeal?
If the appealant looses, do they have to pay the claimant's costs too?
And presumably we'll be able to see all of this on telly next year ?

CobyBenson

Bott & Co are representing both Mr Dawson and Mr Huzar in their respective appeals.

In Dawson dxc_chappie has quite rightly pointed out that Thomson aren't allowed to recover their costs if they were successful.

In Huzar Bott & Co will be picking up the bill if the worst should happen.

In both cases the clients are represented on a no-win-no-fee basis so if we don't win we don't recover our fees from the clients. If we do win the costs will be paid by the airlines.

richardw

Who will be representing Thomson and Jet2?

JPears

CobyBenson wrote: »

Bott & Co are representing both Mr Dawson and Mr Huzar in their respective appeals.

In Dawson dxc_chappie has quite rightly pointed out that Thomson aren't allowed to recover their costs if they were successful.

In Huzar Bott & Co will be picking up the bill if the worst should happen.

In both cases the clients are represented on a no-win-no-fee basis so if we don't win we don't recover our fees from the clients. If we do win the costs will be paid by the airlines.

Cheers Coby. Will we see you on TV?

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

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:

I know it was a joint effort and Ive' got the documents to prove it!

JPears

batman44 wrote: »

I know it was a joint effort and Ive' got the documents to prove it!

Ooh stop teasing and post them up