Huzar appeal

sging1

My recorded letter is now in the post to Thomas Cook with copies to three other addresses they use. (They seem to have kept moving around in the last two years of corresponding).

Just a thought that may interest a few coming out of a stay. If they still insist on going to court you may want to put in your letter;

"If you still persist in fighting in the court, having stayed the case to await the appeal on your request, and you lose, I will apply for all costs for unreasonable conduct: CPR 27.14(2)(g)."



Costs on the small claims track
27.14
(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track .
(Rules 46.11 and 46.13 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)
(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –
(i) are payable under Part 45; or
(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;
(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;
(c) any court fees paid by that other party;
(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for an expert’s fees;
(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably;
(h) the Stage 1 and, where relevant, the Stage 2 fixed costs in rule 45.18 where –
(i) the claim was within the scope of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (‘the RTA Protocol’) or the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims (‘the EL/PL Protocol’);
(ii) the claimant reasonably believed that the claim was valued at more than the small claims track limit in accordance with paragraph 4.1(4) of the relevant Protocol; and
(iii) the defendant admitted liability under the process set out in the relevant Protocol; but
(iv) the defendant did not pay those Stage 1 and, where relevant, Stage 2 fixed costs; and
(i) in an appeal, the cost of any approved transcript reasonably incurred.
(3) A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.

NoviceAngel

Centipede100 wrote: »

If I were in the position of any claimant right now I would be writing to the courts asking for the stay to be lifted and my case heard or judgment issued, copying the airline with my letter. I would not necessarily make a formal N244 application since in many cases airlines made no effort in that regard either to stay these cases.

Thanks for that Centipede100 it's 10am an the telephone lines to the Court open, brb

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel

Yes, you were correct Centipede, no formal application is required, just a letter/email in writing and the case will be returned to the Judge for directions.

Vauban

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Yes, you were correct Centipede, no formal application is required, just a letter/email in writing and the case will be returned to the Judge for directions.

Let us know how you get on! Good luck.

Jerry2014

My action against Thomson is at the stage where Directions questionnaires have been returned (due 9th June).

Thomson are citing 'Extraordinary circumstances' due to unforeseen technical fault (not relevant actually, it was a knock on effect which caused the delay, due to crew out of hours).

I wrote to the court and Thomson yesterday stating that 'in addition to my previous arguments I will be relying on the Court of Appeal ruling dated 11th July 2014 Jet2.com Limited -V- Huzar'

I hope this may help conclude the action before a hearing.

JPears

batman44 wrote: »

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.

Like I said yesterday, on what grounds. I can see nothing new that they can bring to the argument one way or the other, that has not laready been discussed and decided upon by the legal decision.
C'mon Jet2 accept defeat gracefully and get on with trying to do your business without delays, cancellations and denied boarding.

NoviceAngel

HOT NEWS!!

2birds are requesting that cases "REMAIN STAYED" pending the outcome of the Supreme Court!!!!!

Words fail me...

Where's that dark room again ?

Vauban

NoviceAngel wrote: »

HOT NEWS!!

2birds are requesting that cases "REMAIN STAYED" pending the outcome of the Supreme Court!!!!!

Words fail me...

Where's that dark room again ?

Interesting. Of course they have been refused permission to appeal to the SC (albeit by the CoA) and will not have put their application to the SC yet. I hope you can make these points to the Court.

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Like I said yesterday, on what grounds. I can see nothing new that they can bring to the argument one way or the other, that has not laready been discussed and decided upon by the legal decision.
C'mon Jet2 accept defeat gracefully and get on with trying to do your business without delays, cancellations and denied boarding.

Jet2 would need to show, as I understand it, that:

a) there is a point of law at stake here (there is - it's not just a "finding of fact")

b) that this point of law has significant public interest (it does - given the implications for passengers and the aviation industry); and

c) that there is a reasonable prospect of challenge (like you JP, I think this is their weakest grounds: the CoA judgement was well argued and evidenced, but there is still some declared ambiguity in it - such as "the issue is not without some difficulty"; "I am inclined to think this is indeed the correct analysis", etc).

So I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see Jet2.com get their day in court. Again. But I don't imagine it is a foregone conclusion, and I hope that the Supreme Court tells that to take a jump!

duchy

Listening to Nick Ferrari this morning on LBC and his "expert" Matt someone who is the Mirror's expert on something or other was saying " You only qualify for compensation if you are flying on a EU airline to or from the EU" I suppose if you're half right that makes you an expert.

(This dark room is getting very crowded)