Huzar appeal

Superhorn

It's just been on Watchdog. Watch out Thomas Cook I'm coming to get you. In dispute since December 2008.

mrnasty

David_e wrote: »

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.

Indeed. Because that is the purpose of the legislation anyway. And yes, under statutory law (which a directly effective EC regulation is in this case) the court is bound to apply it and cannot take into financial considerations, again, even if they did, that is the purpose of the legislation to compensate. Other types of law such as common law negligence etc has elements of discretion as to whether liability is imposed, one reason could be on cost grounds as well as other factors. But of course, we are not talking about common law issues here.

Kew73

Headline story on BBC North West tonight bulletin -great job!

legal_magpie

Brilliant outcome and thanks to Vauban and Batman for keeping us up to date. Do we have any idea when Dawson will be decided?

NoviceAngel

FANTASTIC NEWS!! Well done to MR Huzar and all his legal team..

I'm now waiting for the birds to make contact as ordered by the DJ that "stayed" my case, it will be interesting to see if they request a further stay pending a Supreme Court ruling or they simply pay my claim in FULL without any further delay?!?!?

Hmmm I wonder.....

Regards,

NoviceAngel

Vauban

Hmm. I suspect that they will continue to argue that, unless and until the Supreme Court refuses to consider the case, then the matter is still contested. And thus that the stays should hold.

There's an interesting philosophical point that the lawyers might answer though: is Lord Justice Elias' interpretation of the Regulation now currently law, absent a formal appeal to the Supreme Court? Is there, in other words, a window in which to request judgement from the small claims courts?

Vauban

The Elias judgement really is worth a read: it's a very impressive document. Thr heart of the reasoning seems to me to lie in paras 35-37. He has captured the issues brilliantly. (And note that, ironically, Judge Platts' original argument is not actually upheld - rightly in my view.)

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

Hmm. I suspect that they will continue to argue that, unless and until the Supreme Court refuses to consider the case, then the matter is still contested. And thus that the stays should hold.

There's an interesting philosophical point that the lawyers might answer though: is Lord Justice Elias' interpretation of the Regulation now currently law, absent a formal appeal to the Supreme Court? Is there, in other words, a window in which to request judgement from the small claims courts?

Been pondering this one.

Is yesterday's decision now law and binding on all lower courts?

IMO - yes until it is/if overturned in the supreme court if it is allowed.

Current stayed case's are released dur to the fact the appeal decision has been made by the High Court therefore releasing the stayed cases.

IMO Further requests to stay case until the Supreme Court/If must be reapplied for by the airlines as a decision has been made.
Just because they might apply to the Supreme Court does not mean there is a point of law to be had, the point has already be made not once, not twice, but four times! 2 Huzar Appeals, and 2 EU cases, the law cannot be any clearer.

Jet2 just did not like the result so they may go back until they get the required result, I doubt it as the judges have said, this regulation it there for the inconvenience to passenger not to decide whos at fault or not. I have said that Jet2 have tried to twist the meaning of the term Extraordinary Circumstances in a way the the spirit of the law was written, the judges picked up on that.

Perhaps somebody in the legal world could tells us if the stays are now still in place till after any possible Supreme Court judgement or not.

IMO based on what the Home Secretary went through to deport someone, each and every decision along the way was the law at the time and nothing was stayed pending a decision until it was enforced by another stay application to the court at each step, if think that applies here.

NoviceAngel

Just to clarify in my case the stay says:

2. Should the defendants application for permission to appeal be granted, the Claim be further stayed pending the outcome of any appeal in the matter of MR Ronald Huzar v Jet2.com Limited.

No mention of Supreme Courts, so my case can surface from the ashes, no doubt, they could apply to the courts to have it stayed again !?!? It will be interesting to see how the birds play this one out ...

Watch this space lol

NoviceAngel

batman44

Just been looking at the Supreme Court applications to appeal cases, there are many, many cases refused appeal on EU law as they say it is for the EU courts but the main reason they give time after time is-


Permissionto appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point oflaw of general public importance which ought to be considered by the
SupremeCourt at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the
subject ofjudicial decision and reviewed on appeal. The Court of Appeal’s decision
wascorrect for the reasons they gave.