Huzar appeal

sging1

Vauban wrote: »

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)?

With reasonable interest added it’s around 8K on the claim and the barrister costs £1,200 inc VAT but obviously it won’t cost this much if we settle beforehand, he’s also been great giving advice when needed. My legal insurance agreed to pay for any court fees but not legal representation strangely. It got to the point it wasn’t just about the money, but the really bad way we were treated on the day and how they refuse to accept responsibility for letting people down and treating them like this.

Vauban

sging1 wrote: »

With reasonable interest added it’s around 8K on the claim and the barrister costs £1,200 inc VAT but obviously it won’t cost this much if we settle beforehand, hes also been great giving advice when needed. My legal insurance agreed to pay for any court fees but not legal representation strangely.

Interesting. Of course, even if you win you are unlikely to get the barristers costs. But that still gives you 85% of your claim (assuming you are awarded interest - that's at the discretion of the judge). Hope it all works out for you.

TrevorSmith

It got to the point it wasn’t just about the money

This is correct for me too. I would be claiming at all if the airline had treated me in a reasonable way and not made blatantly specious arguments to try to wriggle out of their responsibilities

dino25uk

It got to the point it wasn’t just about the money

Totally agree with you. I had actually to take the airline to court to eventually find out what the "extraordinary circumstance/ safety shortcoming" actually was. I think the airlines have become complacent as delays seem to be such a common occurrence, and they have gotten away with it for so long. It's time they all got their act together and stepped up to the plate. If I arrive late at an airport, I don't expect an airline to fly me to my destination, equally if I am on time, I expect to be flown to my destination in a reasonable time.

nigelpm

Interesting news release from Dart Group (they own Jet2.com) this morning:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/dart-group-plc--dtg-/rns/preliminary-results/201406260700085675K/


There has been considerable interest in an appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal relating to a claim for compensation, made by Mr Ronald Huzar, under EU Regulation 261 in respect of a Jet2.com flight which was delayed due to a technical defect. In line with guidance published by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and other European National Enforcement Bodies, Jet2.com maintained that the technical defect was an "extraordinary circumstance" which relieved it of the obligation to pay compensation. In a judgment given on 11 June 2014, the Court of Appeal held that the technical defect was not an extraordinary circumstance and that compensation is payable. Jet2.com is not leaving the matter there and is seeking ultimate resolution by appealing to the Supreme Court, which may involve, instead or in addition, reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Mr Huzar and his family were delayed on return from their holiday near Malaga in Spain, in October 2011. A replacement aircraft was positioned to Malaga to ensure our customers returned home as soon as possible. During the delay, Jet2.com fully met its duty of care obligations, providing food and hotel accommodation to all customers on the affected flight.

I suspect this is going to have a major impact on the smaller airlines and may even push them into financial difficulties.

batman44

nigelpm wrote: »

Interesting news release from Dart Group (they own Jet2.com) this morning:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/dart-group-plc--dtg-/rns/preliminary-results/201406260700085675K/


There has been considerable interest in an appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal relating to a claim for compensation, made by Mr Ronald Huzar, under EU Regulation 261 in respect of a Jet2.com flight which was delayed due to a technical defect. In line with guidance published by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and other European National Enforcement Bodies, Jet2.com maintained that the technical defect was an "extraordinary circumstance" which relieved it of the obligation to pay compensation. In a judgment given on 11 June 2014, the Court of Appeal held that the technical defect was not an extraordinary circumstance and that compensation is payable. Jet2.com is not leaving the matter there and is seeking ultimate resolution by appealing to the Supreme Court, which may involve, instead or in addition, reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Mr Huzar and his family were delayed on return from their holiday near Malaga in Spain, in October 2011. A replacement aircraft was positioned to Malaga to ensure our customers returned home as soon as possible. During the delay, Jet2.com fully met its duty of care obligations, providing food and hotel accommodation to all customers on the affected flight.

I suspect this is going to have a major impact on the smaller airlines and may even push them into financial difficulties.

Read this myself this morning, profits and trading down, I wonder why.

The main point is they say they may refer this to the EUCJ, sorry mr Jet2 where have you been? They have had 2 case's called Wallentin & Sturgeon in the EUCJ one is over the very same thing, so that's not possible. The UK Supreme court doe's not refer case's to the EU on EU law SC website-


References to the Court of Justice of the European Union


Like other final courts, the UKSC is, in the areas of European law in which the United Kingdom has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), under the duty imposed by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to ask the CJEU to give preliminary rulings concerning:

1. the interpretation of the Treaties; and
2. the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;

where such a question is raised in proceedings before it and it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment.

Where an application for permission to appeal raises such a question, the UKSC does not, when considering whether in the light of that question to grant permission or to make a reference to the CJEU, apply a test of whether the question is of general public importance.

Just give up and accept you lost and move on. You cannot be any clearer on the law layed down a couple of weeks ago. You only increase further anger, not just to yourself but other airlines as well, thousands are now out of the woodwork due to you bringing this to public attention by dragging this on.

Correct me If I am wrong...

nigelpm

batman44 wrote: »

Just give up and accept you lost and move on. You cannot be any clearer on the law layed down a couple of weeks ago. You only increase further anger, not just to yourself but other airlines as well, thousands are now out of the woodwork due to you bringing this to public attention by dragging this on.

Correct me If I am wrong...

Well... My gut feel says they are very concerned at how big this might be and what have they got to lose by keeping this going?

Not a lot. If I were a director I'd probably do the same.

Also, the longer it drags on the more chance to build up cash reserves and the more people who will give up chasing for their compensation.

batman44

nigelpm wrote: »

Well... My gut feel says they are very concerned at how big this might be and what have they got to lose by keeping this going?

Not a lot. If I were a director I'd probably do the same.

Also, the longer it drags on the more chance to build up cash reserves and the more people who will give up chasing for their compensation.

That may be the case, but there are fresh applicants all the time and more NWNF companies starting up on this now. As for the reserves they will be eaten up by people in this for the long run and have cases coming out of stays, in court I will be asking for the max in intrest added to the original amount.
The airlines have been ripping passengers off for far too long with minimum leg room, poor service, old aircraft, silly excuses not to pay up. How many people realise they can claim compensation for delays on trains? not many because they do not draw attention to it.

nigelpm

batman44 wrote: »

That may be the case, but there are fresh applicants all the time and more NWNF companies starting up on this now. As for the reserves they will be eaten up by people in this for the long run and have cases coming out of stays, in court I will be asking for the max in intrest added to the original amount.
The airlines have been ripping passengers off for far too long with minimum leg room, poor service, old aircraft, silly excuses not to pay up. How many people realise they can claim compensation for delays on trains? not many because they do not draw attention to it.

Totally agree with you but that doesn't change the immediate interests of shareholders and Directors.

batman44

nigelpm wrote: »

Totally agree with you but that doesn't change the immediate interests of shareholders and Directors.

I think they need to be worried about the long term effects of this.

190 GBp -24.38%Jun 26 10:20 Dart group