Huzar appeal

zzx

W(h)ither the NEB guidelines?

The CAA published guidelines are now legally incorrect. Should the CAA continue to publish them on its website and passengers are, therefore, dissuaded from persuing legitimate action is the CAA liable for compensation for wilfully misrepresenting the law?

stevemej123

stevemej123 wrote: »

I've been waiting for this result before sending nba. NBA going tomorrow and action to start in 2 weeks. Are Jet2 likely still to go to court to defend the claim based on 'technical flight shortcoming'?

I've been waiting for this result before sending nba. NBA going tomorrow and action to start in 2 weeks. Are Jet2 likely still to go to court to defend the claim based on 'technical flight shortcoming

David_e

JPears wrote: »

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?

Absolutely. I can't see how a legal claim that your daughter wasn't party to could prejudice her right to bring a claim. It's the flip side of airlines not paying out all passengers on a flight for which they have lost a claim.

Go for it! Some revenge would be rather nice!

batman44

I am sure our lord Vauban will cast his eye over the judgement but here's a little of my view from the statement by Jet2 and the judgement.


A Jet2.comspokesperson said: “Today’s judgement is disappointing and could, if unchallenged, have a significant impact on the entire airline industry. TheJudge noted that the issue “is not without some difficulty,” and as such we aretaking the dispute to the Supreme Court.

Jet2 - Today’s judgementis disappointing and could, if unchallenged, have a significant impact on theentire airline industry.

Shame, they have had years for this and just goes to show the contempt. What about the passengers?

“Is not withoutsome difficulty,” This was the Judge’s decision on how to decide, not on whatthe law says.

I think the pointby the judges is bang on -

"Some may be foreseeable and some not but all are, in myview, properly described as inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’sactivity. They have their nature and origin in that activity; they are part ofthe wear and tear. In my judgment, theappellant’s submissions fail to give proper effect to the language of theexception. It distorts the meaning oflimb 1 in defining it by reference to limb 2, and thereby renders itsuperfluous. It makes an event extraordinary which in common sense terms isperfectly ordinary"

Jet2 - “Today’s rulingwill only cause further confusion for passengers and airlines, which is why wewill continue to seek clarity and consistency by appealing directly to a highercourt.

There is noconfusion in what the judges has said and now trying to fall back on the NEB guidelines and we know what HH Judge Platts said about that.

stevemej123

zzx wrote: »

W(h)ither the NEB guidelines?

The CAA published guidelines are now legally incorrect. Should the CAA continue to publish them on its website and passengers are, therefore, dissuaded from persuing legitimate action is the CAA liable for compensation for wilfully misrepresenting the law?

When I got my last letter from the CAA saying that as it was a technical fault it was classed as an extraordinary circumstance and no compensation was payable i replied with a !!!!!! letter informing them that they SHOULD NOT be writing to complainants with this until the Huzar appeal had been heard. Here is the reply they gave me:

RE: Jet2

Thank you for your email which states that you are unhappy with our decision as to the applicability of extraordinary circumstances to your complaint and our view that you are not entitled to compensation.

The CAA has responsibility for enforcing EC Regulation 261/2004 that provides rights to passengers if their flights are delayed or cancelled. Airlines should pay passengers compensation when a flight is cancelled or delayed, except where there are ‘extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken’.

In a case from the Court of Justice of the European Union Sturgeon v Condor and Bock v Air France (C-402/07 and C-432/07), technical problems are excluded from being extraordinary circumstances unless they are beyond the actual control of the airline. As the judgment says at 72 'a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.' As such, technical problems can be extraordinary, and it remains our view that in this case compensation is not payable to you.

I appreciate that this may not be the response that you wish to receive, but would like to thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns with us, and hope this email has been able to provide some information as to how the decision was reached in your case, and that we did take the time to consider your individual case in the light of the European legal cases on the subject as well as detailed technical evidence provided by Jet2. It remains an option for you to consider court action, but we are not able to give an indication on whether a court would come to any different view on extraordinary circumstances and reasonable measures in your case.

We are aware of the ruling in the Huzard but, as it is a decision of the lower courts, it is not binding on any other court. It has to be a matter for the airlines if they wish to adjust their approach to reflect this decision. We are also aware that the decision has been appealed and if the Court of Appeal upholds the judgment we would expect compliance with it and this would overrule any guidance in place at that point.

Yours sincerely


Adrian Ghilotti
Consumer Affairs Supervisor
Market and Consumers Group
Civil Aviation Authority
CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway, London WC2B 6TE
Telephone: 0207 453 6888
www.caa.co.uk

I have today written back asking if they will now write back to ALL the people the discouraged from going to court informing them that technical faults are probably NOT extraordinary circumstances and compensation will be payable.

David_e

batman44 wrote: »

Jet2 - Today’s judgementis disappointing and could, if unchallenged, have a significant impact on the entire airline industry.

Yes, the entire airline industry will either have to get its act together or pay people the compensation provided for in law. Shocking impact!

David_e

stevemej123 wrote: »

"The CAA has responsibility for enforcing EC Regulation 261/2004 ...."

Well, if they do (and airlines seem confident enough to ignore the CAA when it suits them) them they've done a pretty wretched job of it.

Star9272

A Jet2.comspokesperson said: “Today’s judgement is disappointing and could, if unchallenged, have a significant impact on the entire airline industry. TheJudge noted that the issue “is not without some difficulty,” and as such we aretaking the dispute to the Supreme Court.

If it goes to the Supreme Court I can't see the result being the same because if the implications.

mrnasty

Yes, the Court of Appeal judgment IS binding on all lower courts and on the Court of Appeal itself unless of course it is overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, which I very much doubt it will be. I say this because not only have these issues been tested domestically, they have already had a number of binding ECJ / CJEU rulings, it also has been shown that that paying out the compensation in the event of a claim / or complaint regarding a delay in breach of the EC Regulations will not open the flood gates or cause the airlines a disproportionate expense. What the airlines should do instead is improve contingency planning to prevent further delays, it could perhaps be cheaper in the long run and avoid any unnecessary bad press.

David_e

Star9272 wrote: »

A Jet2.comspokesperson said: “Today’s judgement is disappointing and could, if unchallenged, have a significant impact on the entire airline industry. TheJudge noted that the issue “is not without some difficulty,” and as such we aretaking the dispute to the Supreme Court.

If it goes to the Supreme Court I can't see the result being the same because if the implications.

I'm not sure that judges are allowed to interpret law by taking into account a particular view on the potential consequences. It's not even as if Jet2 had said, this would cost us - or the industry - £Xm pa. If judges were to rule on the basis of some unquantified level of financial damage that might result rather than interpret, as reasonably as possible, the words of the legislation, it would be a very bad day for the law.

The sentence from which the Jet2 quote was extracted was:

"I accept that the issue is not without some difficulty but in my view, despite the attractive way in which these arguments were advanced, I would reject them. "

Even if the "difficulty", to which LJ Elias refers, is the consequences of airlines having to pay compensation, he is saying that is irrelevant.