Huzar appeal

supermac9

I received what looks like a standard letter from Jet2 saying that they will be appealing direct to the Supreme Court and that they have 28 days from the Court of Appeal judgement to do so. I expect they will wait until the last possible moment to stretch this out as long as possible.

NoviceAngel

supermac9 wrote: »

I received what looks like a standard letter from Jet2 saying that they will be appealing direct to the Supreme Court and that they have 28 days from the Court of Appeal judgement to do so. I expect they will wait until the last possible moment to stretch this out as long as possible.

Yeah probably but if your case is currently 'stayed' get your objection to a further stay lodged with the court Manager requesting directions from a DJ

legal_magpie

Unless and until the Supreme Court grants them permission to appeal, there should be no stay. The Court of Appeal's decision is binding.

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie wrote: »

Unless and until the Supreme Court grants them permission to appeal, there should be no stay. The Court of Appeal's decision is binding.

i agree 100% but Tell that to the DJ's......

I eagerly await a letter from the local CC.

nicki_d987

Hmmm . . . .


Slightly frustrated, last week I wrote to the court (copy letter to Thomson) asking for the stay to be lifted given the recent verdict in Jet2.com vs Huzar (I enclosed a copy of the judgement).


Today I receive a really badly worded General Form of Judgement or Order from the court, it was so full of errors, at first glance I wondered whether Thomson had got hold of the court templates and written it themselves!


What it comes down to though, is that the court, in response to my request for the stay to be lifted, have further stayed my case "pending determination of the application by Defendant 2 in the case of Defendant 2 v haser for leave to appeal to the supreme court" (court's spelling and description errors not mine)


How annoying is that?!

NoviceAngel

Not surprising, I see a worrying trend appearing in the Courts, at least I won't be shocked when I get mine, thanks for sharing the info.

Regards,

NoviceAngel

sging1

I worked it slightly different, when Thomas Cook asked me for a stay pending the Huzar case I said yes but if Jet2 lose and you (TC) then insist on going to court I would claim all costs for being unreasonable, as allowed in the small claims court and as I am claiming for 13 people I have arranged and paid for a barrister to represent me for this second hearing (I did the first one myself).

So on the recent outcome, Thomas Cook had a recorded delivery letter the very next morning to all the four addresses that I have had correspondence from giving them a new NBA of 14 days.

At the same time I then asked the courts to give me two weeks to give Thomas Cook the time to now settle. I had a court letter today from the judge stating we have until the 18th July to let him know if we came to an out of court settlement otherwise he has only stayed the case until the 1st August. So far I have heard nothing from Thomas Cook and they only have until Friday this week to respond with a settlement.

If I don't hear from them I will inform the courts to lift the stay and proceed with a court date.:cool:

Vauban

What is the total value of your claim sging1? And how much has a barrister set you back (if you don't mind the question)?

dino25uk

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/insigh...rt-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 ...

It seems the only people who aren't clear on the judgement are the airlines.
The increase in the cost of air travel, at least in my case, would be a small price to pay, as our family practically missed the first day of their AI holiday :mad:

Vauban

dino25uk wrote: »

It seems the only people who aren't clear on the judgement are the airlines.
The increase in the cost of air travel, at least in my case, would be a small price to pay, as our family practically missed the first day of their AI holiday :mad:

I agree - it is plainly absurd to say that it's a pity that the Court of Appeal didn't clarify extraordinary circumstances: it gave a very clear definition. It doesn't do much for the credibility of the authors, in my view.

Actually I think the airlines are also pretty clear on what the judgment says - that's why they want to appeal it!