Huzar appeal

JPears

Centipede100 wrote: »

IMHO the Huzar judgment is now

Should the airline apply to appeal to the Supreme Court, then and only then can lower courts consider an application to continue to stay any current cases by the defendant. The airline has 28 days from 10th June to petition the Supreme Court to hear any appeal.

.....either to stay these cases.

Surely only if they are granted leave to appeal, not just apply?

111KAB

http://www.bottonline.co.uk/aviation-latest-news/what-does-the-huzar-v-jet2-com-judgment-mean-for-my-claim

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

http://www.bottonline.co.uk/aviation-latest-news/what-does-the-huzar-v-jet2-com-judgment-mean-for-my-claim

Key point of this article (from Bott):

The Huzar judgment is now good law and will remain so until such time as there is an order from a higher court telling us otherwise. An intention to appeal, or indeed a pending appeal, should not be sufficient to dissuade the court from applying the test set down by Lord Justice Elias yesterday.

batman44

Bott-

The Court of Appeal refused Jet2.com leave (permission) to appeal so Jet2.com have said they will ask the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. There is no guarantee they will be allowed to appeal and even if they were, the same arguments will be used that have already been unsuccessful in Manchester County Court and the Court of Appeal.

We are now in line with the rest of Europe following yesterday’s judgment and for the Supreme Court to go against that would be highly unusual.

Supreme Court appeals list, case after case refused with this reason-

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 of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal. The Court of Appeal’s decision
was correct for the reasons they gave.

Vauban

I wanted to pick up, and play around with, a point made by the estimable Mr. Centipede on another forum recently about the Huzar Judgement - and why Jet2.com have been really very silly indeed.

We saw, in response to the Nelson verdict in October 2012, a systematic attempt by the airlines to refuse to implement Regulation 261/04, especially in the context of delays caused by technical failures. Despite the damage caused to the corporate reputations by treating their customers so contemptuously, this was probably a sound strategy - at least in terms of mitigating financial pressures (which is what they seem to be most concerned about). With the active assistance of the CAA - about whom I write below - they constructed "draft" guidance which ran contrary to European law and which has now been exposed as fallacious.

In fact, the law was reasonably clear already. And claimants who felt confident enough to take them on (sometimes with the help of a decent NWNF lawyer) had very good odds of success. Before the courts started to routinely to stay cases, airlines were paying out in approximately 90% of cases (on the basis of what was being reported here). Most airlines were settling on the steps, once claimants had shown they were not to be fobbed off.

But the airlines' approach was successful for them, since most people lacked the awareness and confidence to take these steps. Of the (likely) minority of passengers who wrote to airlines to claim compensation, most would have accepted the airlines assurances that they were not entitled to compensation given the "extraordinary circumstances" of their claim. By establishing such bureaucratic hurdles, so were passengers generally deprived of their rights.

Fortunately for us, a small number of people were not to easily deterred. And one of them - Ron Huzar - was prepared to challenge the airline to respect his rights. Though he initially lost in the small claims court, he understood the law perfectly well and showed the determination to ensure it was respected. With the active support of Bott & Co - who also deserve huge credit for their part in this saga - he appealed in the County Court.

Given that their legal position was so precarious (the arguments in Wallentin and subsequent binding European case law were clear enough under the kind of serious legal scrutiny that one sees beyond the small claims track) it is quite astonishing that Jet2.com should have resisted Ron Huzar rather than paid his legitimate claim. But in allowing a more senior Judge to opine on Ron's case, they started to bet the farm.

When HHJ Platts ruled against them, Jet2 suddenly had a real problem. The Platts' Huzar judgement was not binding in a strict sense, but as it came from a more senior court it was "persuasive" - and in the days that followed there was much anecdotal evidence of claimants being able to use it very effectively with District Judges to win their claims. And not just against Jet2 of course - but across the piece.

I cannot imagine that the other airlines thanked Jet2 for this. And perhaps Jet2 now realised the full implications of resisting Ron Huzar's initial appeal. They had to "double down" and bet the rest of the farm - and indeed the other airlines' farms as well - by going to the Court of Appeal. They would have appreciated the risks of this stratagem: if they failed they would create not just a persuasive judgement but a legally binding one, with all the attendant publicity that this would generate.

It is interesting to speculate what other airlines made of this. Were they happy with the direction that Jet2 had taken the Huzar case? Did they consider that the possible creation of a high profile and binding precedent was worth the risk, when the issue could instead have continued to be managed by ensuring most passengers' claims were denied by reference to "extraordinary circumstances"? It is difficult to conceive of how anyone on the airlines' side might have thought the Jet2.com plan a good idea.

The Court of Appeal's verdict is - contrary to the nonsense spouted by Jet2's press office yesterday - clear and compelling. It is not surprising that they were refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeal, and it is far from certain that a separate petition directly to the Supreme Court will succeed. So let us raise a glass to whoever in Jet2 was driving their strategy, because they have done more to advance UK passenger rights on Regulation 261/04 than the CAA, MEPs and Uncle Tom Cobbly ever managed. Cheers guys - you're the best!! :beer:

So where do we go from here? For those whose cases are currently stayed or for those considering starting a new case, the advice from Bott & Co looks good to me:

The Huzar judgment is now good law and will remain so until such time as there is an order from a higher court telling us otherwise. An intention to appeal, or indeed a pending appeal, should not be sufficient to dissuade the court from applying the test set down by Lord Justice Elias yesterday.

In the meantime, I think some very difficult questions need to be asked of the CAA. They must acknowledge (and privately do) that their guidelines are now inconsistent with UK law. They should be removed from the website immediately, and revised as a priority. Moreover, it would appear - to put it as charitably as possible - that the CAA's misinterpretation of the law means they have been advising a large number of people incorrectly. How many, I wonder? I would argue it is imperative that the CAA re-opens all assessments that it made based on its misunderstanding of UK law and writes to passengers to inform them of new guidance. It is the very least that they can do if they want to preserve what is left of their shredded credibility.

Jerry2014

Centipede100 wrote: »

You may want to write to both court and Thomson again correcting the date on the CoA judgment...

The typo was only on this forum. Letter has correct date. Thanks.

batman44

Centipede100 wrote: »

And the talk of a possible appeal to the Supreme Court is part of Jet2's continued strategy to muddy the waters.

I am certain that with the likely revision to the Reg coming into being in 2015 that the airlines were hoping that they could further dissuade passengers from claiming compensation by trying anything to push the timetable out to a position where the revised Reg comes into play and then say "oh no, you're not covered/not valid/out of time etc" to those who have claims arising out of the period covered by the existing Reg.

Or am I being somewhat too cynical?

I would have thought any claims pending now would be under exsisting regs, not future regs.

JPears

Centipede100 wrote: »

And the talk of a possible appeal to the Supreme Court is part of Jet2's continued strategy to muddy the waters.

I am certain that with the likely revision to the Reg coming into being in 2015 that the airlines were hoping that they could further dissuade passengers from claiming compensation by trying anything to push the timetable out to a position where the revised Reg comes into play and then say "oh no, you're not covered/not valid/out of time etc" to those who have claims arising out of the period covered by the existing Reg.

Or am I being somewhat too cynical?

Me thinks not

batman44

One point of interest, if it did get to the Supreme Court we all can watch live here-

http://news.sky.com/info/supreme-court

edtheduck_2

Centipede100 wrote: »

IMHO the Huzar judgment is now precedent case law. The airline was formally denied leave to appeal so Huzar remains just that.

Should the airline apply to appeal to the Supreme Court, then and only then can lower courts consider an application to continue to stay any current cases by the defendant. The airline has 28 days from 10th June to petition the Supreme Court to hear any appeal.

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.

Centipede, apologies for barging in, but I'm interested in your suggestion to contact the courts and ask for a judgement. Would you be recommending this to all claimants or just those that were stayed pending Huzar? It's just I am mid claim with TC (online) and they have until 9th July to reply, should I contact the court and if so, what should I say please? By the way I am in Belfast, so I take it the same rules will apply in the Northern Ireland courts? Thank you