Huzar appeal

legal_magpie

razorsedge wrote: »

Not sure if courts are actually granting stays regarding the Huzar appeal yet.
Unless I have misread this site:
casetracker dot justice dot gov dot uk
search case reference 20133277
(Sorry I cannot post links)

the permission to appeal Huzar has not been granted with a hearing due sometime in January 2014 to decide if permission should be granted.

This is very helpful thanks. In my view Courts should not be granting a stay because it is now clear that Jet 2 have not yet been granted permission to appeal. If they do, the situation will be different. I would therefore advise anyone faced with such a request from an airline to object at this stage.

Also, it may well be that a case would have succeeded regardless of Huzar if the alleged ECs were of no such thing.

David_e

legal_magpie wrote: »

Also, it may well be that a case would have succeeded regardless of Huzar if the alleged ECs were of no such thing.

That did occur to me (and I think was mentioned on another thread). We are all quoting Wallentin which basically covers the same ground and reaches the same conclusion on the substantive points.

Supposing, in some parallel universe, the Huzar appeal does go ahead and is sucessful. Would that set a precedent for small claims cases notwithstanding Walllentin? I assume ECJ is a superior court albeit not an English one. (No idea how Huzar plays in the Scottish courts!)

legal_magpie

Yes, the lower Courts would be bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal BUT the Court of Appeal is bound by Wallentin and has to apply it. The issue is whether Judge Platts went too far in Huzar. My personal view is that he got it spot on
JJ

batman44

JPears wrote: »

Ooh stop teasing and post them up

Bit late but just seen this post, I don't know how to post them up, how do I do it?

batman44

Centipede100 wrote: »

Use a web-hosting service for files and provide the link to this in your post here.

Ok found a good file sharing site for anyone that need to share files, so here you go. Information found on the internet.

Letter from the CAA to airlines here
https://app.box.com/s/48cuuhevnd72mlarh11o


Response from airline to CAA here
https://app.box.com/s/4hi7l6ae27wvqrrhgjck


These docs led to the NEB list
Thoughts?

jenn1ewest1

HI everyone had my case stayed yesterday however the Judge gave thomson 14 days to actually update him on the Huzar appeal as he could find no evidence that an appeal had been lodged and he awarded me 80.00 costs for my wasted day in court as they had knowingly not filled in the correct forms to avoid court fees
JH

JPears

jenn1ewest1 wrote: »

HI everyone had my case stayed yesterday however the Judge gave thomson 14 days to actually update him on the Huzar appeal as he could find no evidence that an appeal had been lodged and he awarded me 80.00 costs for my wasted day in court as they had knowingly not filled in the correct forms to avoid court fees
JH

Jenn - Jet2 are seeking permission to appeal, if they pass that hurdle, they then have to actually win the appeal. The hearing for permission is week beginning 8th Jan 2014, IFAIK

NoviceAngel

It is worrying that 'stays' are being granted, given that Jet2 haven't yet received permission to appeal.

In my case, I did not consent to a stay and Jet2(via the Birds) have made an application to the court to stay my case.

I will update when I have further news. Anybody else know if the courts are routinely granting stays?

Cheers

NoviceAngel

JPears

However, IF Jet2 get permission to appeal AND IF they succeed in the appeal, it only resets the status quo to pre-Huzar. It just makes like it little harder than post-Huzar

David_e

JPears wrote: »

However, IF Jet2 get permission to appeal AND IF they succeed in the appeal, it only resets the status quo to pre-Huzar. It just makes like it little harder than post-Huzar

It's a bit late to get my head round that point but is that correct? Presumably if (and it takes some serious imagination) the Huzar appeal is lost, any small claim would pretty well be thrown out straight away, wouldn't it? The current position is that the bulk of small claims appear to succeed.