Huzar appeal

OldManAhoy

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Just had a PM - Thanks you know who you are

That said that their case went to the County Court today and that the judge ordered that their case remain 'stayed' until the outcome of the permission to appeal to the Supreme Court application was known.

Not good news folks!!

Do you know why? The point that Bott & Co make is a valid one isn't it: Huzar is good law, in place until a higher court rules etc. We have a binding CoA case and binding CJEU case set against that we have the fact Jet2 MIGHT appeal, the Supreme Court MIGHT grant leave to appeal, the Supreme Court MIGHTfind in favour of Jet2. This isn't a gripe I just find it hard to understand that everything stops because something might happen

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Neither good news nor correct application of current case law. Unless or until Jet2 formally petition the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, the Huzar judgment is the precedent case law.

Once Jet2 formally petition the SC for leave then I would understand the DJ's ruling but he/she is mistaken given that no move has as yet been made by the airline.

But in practice - at least as I would judge from the many anecdotes on this forum - District Judges often follow a precautionary approach - and the prospect of the issue rattling around the Supreme Court is sufficient to justify procrastination. Which is as frustrating (and strictly wrong) as it is predictable perhaps.

NoviceAngel

OldManAhoy wrote: »

Do you know why? The point that Bott & Co make is a valid one isn't it: Huzar is good law, in place until a higher court rules etc. We have a binding CoA case and binding CJEU case set against that we have the fact Jet2 MIGHT appeal, the Supreme Court MIGHT grant leave to appeal, the Supreme Court MIGHTfind in favour of Jet2. This isn't a gripe I just find it hard to understand that everything stops because something might happen

I agree, but if you think about it we we're in a very similar position back in December last year, Jet 2 MIGHT get leave to appeal to the CoA and then IF permission is granted they MIGHT be successful in the CoA.

I objected to the judge in my case last December, still didn't make any difference he didn't want to interpret the law as it stood then and I guess some DJs still don't wish to do it now. I do understand why though, nobody likes to be proved wrong, imagine if they started to interpret the law as it is now as we believe it should be. Then permission gets granted for the leave to appeal and then J2 are successful at the SC. Quite a few DJs with egg on their face.

Sometimes in life, it's less hassle to take the easier option and I guess that's what it comes down to. I just hope a few of the DJs start to reverse that trend and have the bottle to do their job and make a decision for themselves..

Regards,

NoviceAngel

OldManAhoy

Vauban wrote: »

But in practice - at least as I would judge from the many anecdotes on this forum - District Judges often follow a precautionary approach - and the prospect of the issue rattling around the Supreme Court is sufficient to justify procrastination. Which is as frustrating (and strictly wrong) as it is predictable perhaps.

So potentially its on a case by case basis? If you have the right judge and/ or make a strong case against further postponement your case may proceed? CoA decisions are non binding but 'pursuasive' here in Scotland and I successfully managed to oppose a motion by the airline for a further posponement on Tuesday. My concern is I might have 'won' on a technicality so may end up facing another application to sist.

glentoran99

Id be interested to know has mr huzar actually got his money yet

nicki_d987

Hi everyone,

I saw on Bott & Co's facebook page today that they believe the Huzar case is going to continue on for a lot longer than Dawson . . .

They said "Huzar may take longer because Jet2 have indicated that they want to refer questions to the ECJ - which would add approx. 2 years"

So, does this mean, even if Jet2 appeal to Supreme Court and the appeal gets dismissed, matters will remain on hold until the questions get put to the ECJ???

glentoran99

Surely the ecj have already ruled regarding technical faults?

Vauban

It is always a laudable thing to expose your prejudices and proclivities to differing views. As an intellectual exercise this helps you to reappraise what you believe and why and explore whether other perspectives might have validity.

In this spirit, I offer you this article from the aviation lawyers at DLA Piper. It is an article on Huzar and extraordinary circumstances: http://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2014/06/out-of-the-extraordinary-the-court-of-appeals/

Notwithstanding my introductory comments, this article really is a pile of steaming nonsense. I don't even have the will, given the imminence of more important stuff like the football, to point out all the things which are so obviously contestable. Indeed the whole article feels a puff piece for the battered aviation industry rather than a serious legal analysis

Take a look and join me in my garden of disdainful incredulity ...

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

It is always a laudable thing to expose your prejudices and proclivities to differing views. As an intellectual exercise this helps you to reappraise what you believe and why and explore whether other perspectives might have validity.

In this spirit, I offer you this article from the aviation lawyers at DLA Piper. It is an article on Huzar and extraordinary circumstances: http://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2014/06/out-of-the-extraordinary-the-court-of-appeals/

Notwithstanding my introductory comments, this article really is a pile of steaming nonsense. I don't even have the will, given the imminence of more important stuff like the football, to point out all the things which are so obviously contestable. Indeed the whole article feels a puff piece for the battered aviation industry rather than a serious legal analysis

Take a look and join me in my garden of disdainful incredulity ...

Dear Mr Vauban, you have such a way with words, I'm not such an intellectual bloke, I'd just describe it as a pile of sh1te. END OF

Skid_Marks

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Dear Mr Vauban, you have such a way with words, I'm not such an intellectual bloke, I'd just describe it as a pile of sh1te. END OF

Don't devalue yourself, you have such fine analytical skills as demonstrated in your response.