Huzar appeal

JPears

So in law is it the case that Huzar still stands as precedent, since the ppeal has not been yet granted?

glentoran99

Appeal application submitted yesterday, plenty of time before the recess to decide if it will be allowed

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

So in law is it the case that Huzar still stands as precedent, since the ppeal has not been yet granted?

I believe that to be the case JP.

However, you know as well as I do that the CC's will just further 'stay' cases until the SC have made a decision one way or the other

NoviceAngel

glentoran99 wrote: »

Appeal application submitted yesterday, plenty of time before the recess to decide if it will be allowed

Well you would like to think so, but if Bott & Co are expecting it to be after the recess then I think that's the likely outcome:(

batman44

No doubt that the objections will be in good order as to why this should not be allowed appeal to the SC.

111KAB

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2012300&c=setreg&region=2


http://www.bottonline.co.uk/aviation-latest-news/statement-on-jet2-application-to-the-supreme-court-to-appeal-huzar-decision

111KAB

batman44 wrote: »

No doubt that the objections will be in good order as to why this should not be allowed appeal to the SC.

Bound to be in good order but the likelihood is that the appeal will be permitted.

batman44

111KAB wrote: »

Bound to be in good order but the likelihood is that the appeal will be permitted.

Am I failing to understand all this? Bott & Co know what the augument is to the SC, they as always know what the defence is. This has been decided in TWO appeals and Jet2 lost and on top of that the same arguments have already been to the ECJ and it has been decided there too. Now are they expecting the SC to overturn decisions made by the ECJ? are they just going to keep on going until the get the answer they like? Three courts have decided in line with the highest of all the ECJ that by there "nature and origin" tech faults are inherent in running an airline, and are within the airlines control.
Forgive me if I am stupid, but on the SC website-


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.

So in the above context and most reasons for refusal


Permission to appeal be refused because the application doesnot raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought tobe considered by the Supreme Court at this time bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.

And

Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise anarguable point of law. In relation to the point of European Union law said tobe raised by or in response to the application it is not necessary to request the Court of Justice to give any ruling, because the Court’s existing jurisprudence already provides a sufficient answer.

Bearing in mind we are talking about regulation 261/2004 an EU Law not a UK law so the above is valid.

Correct me if i am wrong.

chili2001

batman44 wrote: »

Am I failing to understand all this? Bott & Co know what the augument is to the SC, they as always know what the defence is. This has been decided in TWO appeals and Jet2 lost and on top of that the same arguments have already been to the ECJ and it has been decided there too. Now are they expecting the SC to overturn decisions made by the ECJ? are they just going to keep on going until the get the answer they like? Three courts have decided in line with the highest of all the ECJ that by there "nature and origin" tech faults are inherent in running an airline, and are within the airlines control.
Forgive me if I am stupid, but on the SC website-


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.

So in the above context and most reasons for refusal


Permission to appeal be refused because the application doesnot raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought tobe considered by the Supreme Court at this time bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.

And

Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise anarguable point of law. In relation to the point of European Union law said tobe raised by or in response to the application it is not necessary to request the Court of Justice to give any ruling, because the Court’s existing jurisprudence already provides a sufficient answer.

Bearing in mind we are talking about regulation 261/2004 an EU Law not a UK law so the above is valid.

Correct me if i am wrong.

I hope your right. Annoying isn't it. It's like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. I think jet2 believe if they throw enough money at this (rather than using it to pay the required compensation) then they might get the result they want. But, in the meantime they hope more people will just get bored waiting and give up with their claims if they waste enough time which is probably true. The other airlines will of course follow suit. What I don't understand is why the courts don't apply the law as it stands now. Bit pointless having them if they are almost permanently stayed "just in case" someone might appeal (and not even be granted that appeal!) in the future. Makes a complete joke of the law and the county court circuit judges should be ashamed to be not allowing a clear out of these pre Huzar cases.

batman44

I have read on the Bott & Co Twitter/Website that they are asking courts to proceed on the law as it stands as this is a public access to justice and they are asking (meeting) the Judiciary (judges) to apply this test in fairness to the public. I hope this works or we could be waiting years.