Huzar appeal

zzx

it may well be starting to work. My concern is that it wont work for very long if the lobbying underway succeeds in watering down the regs when the review is published next year.
allowing a tech fault to be designated EC if it affects safety will negate the reg entirely.

Vauban

I am with JP on this. The regulation will only improve airline punctuality if people actually claim. But the pressure could be compelling.

Take my case: a delay with Monarch on the Gatwick to Sharm route. Monarch planes were delayed by more than 3 hours on that route over 4% of the time in 2012; easyJet planes were similarly delayed on the same route only 0.3% - so about a 1/14th of the time. If only a small number of people on the flights affected claim, then Monarch are not really disadvantaged. If the whole plane claims, then it becomes a significant incentive to improve punctuality.

And whilst it's true that the costs are ultimately passed onto the passenger, more punctual airlines should be able to offer lower fares if they're not paying big compensation bills. But only if everyone knows their rights and claims. And most people won't claim if they face a protracted legal battle. So that's why, in my view, Huzar is a good thing: it has the potential to end this nonsense once and for all.

As to proposals for a revision to the regulations, I wouldn't worry too much. The European Parliament seems pretty sound on this.

zzx

I am given to understand that the review of the reg will increase the delay time at which compensation is due from 3 to 5 hours and that the amount payable will be reduced. That is seemingly in the bag. Airlines are now lobbying for tech issues to be EC if there is a safety concern.
If the EP has capitulated on the first 2 points then.........

Further I think we shoud be the judge on the niceness of the hat issue.

Essexpaul

Hi all, having read the posts recently about cases stayed whilst Huzar case goes to SC. My Hearing is end August. I did not rely on the Huzar case in my original evidence but used Wallentin and Sturgeon. Could the airline still apply for the case to be stayed due to the Huzar appeal? I understand Judges reluctance to unstay cases, but wondered what your thoughts are on a case that, so far, is still live?

NoviceAngel

Essexpaul wrote: »

Hi all, having read the posts recently about cases stayed whilst Huzar case goes to SC. My Hearing is end August. I did not rely on the Huzar case in my original evidence but used Wallentin and Sturgeon. Could the airline still apply for the case to be stayed due to the Huzar appeal? I understand Judges reluctance to unstay cases, but wondered what your thoughts are on a case that, so far, is still live?

Against which airline is this case? I suspect not Jet2?

Of course, the other side can request a stay at any stage in the proceedings. It doesn't seem to matter whether or not you mention Huzar or rely on that judgement, Jet2 are requesting that all cases be stayed.

Some airlines are now playing fair and paying out, some not. Good luck with your case and fingers crossed it doesn't get stayed.

Regards,

NoviceAngel

Vauban

Prepare yourself for the liklihood that your case WILL be stayed, even though you don't purport to rely on Huzar as an "authority". If they want a stay, the other side will argue that Huzar is likely to come before the Supreme Court and is germane to the matters at hand (namely how the Wallentin judgement should be interpreted). District Judges, it seems, are not brave beasts in these circumstances and do not require much inducement to "stay".

Essexpaul

The airline is Thomson. The original claim was lodged in 2010, however, I only started court proceedings in March 2014. Like you, Vauban, I waited for appeal judgement to be handed down in Ocotober 2013 and then recommenced my claim. Thanks once again. I'll keep you posted.

Vauban

Actually I started my court claim in January 2013 - when Huzar was but a twinkle in our eye. It took over a year, and three hearings, before I finally received judgement against Monarch: the Judge gave them every opportunity and chance to dig themselves out of their hole, but the airline kept digging ... By the end of 2013, Monarch wrote to my court requesting a stay. But the judge said he would only consider this at the hearing, and as Monarch had already been ordered to bring their two witnesses to court, they agreed to proceed with the hearing.

Essexpaul

Just thinking ..... I didn't refer to Huzar and Dawson originally as the judgements were not out. If my case could be stayed anyway, do I now have the option to include Huzar and Dawson in my particulars of claim and include them in my bundle?

Vauban

Yes. If the case were stayed in order to await the outcome of these actions, then they would become integral to proceedings.

I know, not least from personal experience, that the airlines' shenanigans are deeply frustrating. But play a patient game: slowly, slowly catches monkey, etc. Good luck with your case!