Huzar appeal

111KAB

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2011941&c=setreg&region=2

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

I can't see this - what exactly does this person say?

Wording posted after yesterdays ruling Monarch Facebook Complaints- I really can't see how they can be allowed appeal, the court of appeal denied them that right and the court higher than the Supreme Court has already ruled. On what basis could an appeal be allowed?

glentoran99

Sorry to burst your bubble, I posted that and I'm
Neither a lawyer nor have any expertise, just my view

batman44

111KAB wrote: »

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2011941&c=setreg&region=2

Looks like the CAA had to do something or it would leave them with more egg on their faces. Interesting that new claims will be stayed pending the Supreme Court (not imho) but current claims not, and they are informing the airlines. LOL should of done this a long time ago.:mad:
CAA-
But it stressed to passengers that the ruling does not affect claims that airlines rejected prior to Wednesday 11 June, so it is unlikely that airlines will re-visit previously rejected claims. What?

glentoran99

111KAB wrote: »

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2011941&c=setreg&region=2

How are the CAA allowed to exist! Doesn't apply to decisions before 11th June what absolute nonsense!

batman44

glentoran99 wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, I posted that and I'm
Neither a lawyer nor have any expertise, just my view

Nice one, very good line of thought. Is this based on the 4th chamber ECJ?

glentoran99

batman44 wrote: »

Nice one, very good line of thought. Is this based on the 4th chamber ECJ?

Yeah, just my thinking its been clarified in lower courts, and higher courts, can the surpreme court not just say clear off and dont waste our time.

I dont see anything in the judgement that they can appeal as it seems to tie in perfectly with the several ECJ rulings

batman44

glentoran99 wrote: »

Yeah, just my thinking its been clarified in lower courts, and higher courts, can the surpreme court not just say clear off and dont waste our time.

I dont see anything in the judgement that they can appeal as it seems to tie in perfectly with the several ECJ rulings

My thoughts as well I posted a few pages back on the Supreme Court rejecting applications as court have already decided case on appeal and bring nothing new to the party. Just take a look at the rejected cases list to go before the Supreme Court and the reasons. This is for May but take alook back over the months.

http://supremecourt.uk/docs/permission-to-appeal-2014-05.pdf

glentoran99

batman44 wrote: »

My thoughts as well I posted a few pages back on the Supreme Court rejecting applications as court have already decided case on appeal and bring nothing new to the party. Just take a look at the rejected cases list to go before the Supreme Court and the reasons. This is for May but take alook back over the months.

http://supremecourt.uk/docs/permission-to-appeal-2014-05.pdf

from that list

Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable
point of law. The law is clear. This is just an example of applying it to the particular circumstances of the case.

batman44

glentoran99 wrote: »

from that list

Exactly, I think it will be rejected as it has already been decided on appeal, not once, but twice! lest we forget the whole case is around Mr Huzars claim but affects many others.