Huzar appeal

NoviceAngel

Well this really is a surprise, just to recap, my case was stayed last year pending the permission to appeal Huzar to the Appeal Court.

I applied for the 'stay' to be lifted at the local CC as per the wording on the Court Order last year. Jet2 requested a further 'stay' pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.

Today, I have just been informed my case may be heard if Jet2 can't get my agreement to a further stay. I have been asked to respond to 2Birds.

I understand the matter will be considered.

My initial thought thus far, is fantastic lets get to Court, would anybody suggest waiting for the SC? Or are there any other reasons not to proceed my case?

Cheers

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel

To help others, some reasons I gave in my objection to the stay being lifted.


1. The Defendant states that ‘the Court of Appeal can be expected to bring much-needed clarification to the proper interpretation of Article 5(3) of the Regulation.
2. The Court of Appeal has now heard the case and the airline was formally denied leave to appeal. Lord Justice Elias made the following comments:

46. In my judgement, therefore, for all these reasons the appeal fails even on the assumption that the concept of extraordinary circumstances should be defined by reference to a single composite test and not two distinct conditions. If the appellant is right about there being a single composite test, then in my judgement it is essentially as the respondent described it. The second limb will take its meaning from the first rather than vice versa. The event causing the technical problem will be within the control of the carrier if it is part of the normal everyday activity which is being carried on and will be beyond the carrier's control if it is not..
50. Accordingly, in my view HH Judge Platts was right to say that the extraordinary circumstances defence did not apply, albeit that I respectfully disagree with his reasoning. I would dismiss the appeal.
Lady Justice Gloster:
I agree.
Lord Justice Laws:
I also agree.
3. It is my submission that the law and (EC) No 261/2004 should be interpreted as it is now, given that His Honour Judge Platts has already made a judgement. The court of Appeal has now ruled on the matter Whilst it may be the intention of Jet2 to appeal the Court of Appeals decision, I believe the law should be interpreted as it is now understood. .Any further delay to my case, or indeed similar cases, until a Supreme Court ruling if granted permission to appeal will cause a backlog of cases ‘stayed’ in the Court process.
4. Taken from Bott & Co’s website, Mr Ronald Huzars Solicitors “An intention to appeal, or indeed a pending appeal, should not be sufficient to dissuade the court from applying the test set down by Lord Justice Elias yesterday”.

chili2001

Good for you. I hope you get the stay lifted!

NoviceAngel

I've formerly wrote to 2Birds declining to 'concur' the stay, thanks for the loan of your posh word Vauban;-)

Watch this space and ill keep the thread updated, it may well be that when the Court receives the news that I want the matter to be listed, the County Court Judge may well 'stay' the case against my wishes. However, it's promising that a Judge hasn't automatically granted a further stay by default.

NoviceAngel

Dusary

Does anyone know whether Jet2 HAS actually appealed?
They had one month from June 10 to appeal.

I received MY reply from CAA today, over one year since I wrote to them.

We are writing because you contacted us about a disrupted flight. You might have seen coverage in the press about a recent court ruling about treatment of technical faults. If your flight was disrupted due to a technical fault, you could be affected by this court case and we thought you might welcome some clarification of how this judgement affects your case.



The ruling in question is Jet2 v Huzar, and was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 11 June. Jet2 have now sought leave for a further appeal, so the final impact may not be clear for many months yet. However, as it now stands, the “extraordinary circumstances” exemption is still in the law, but will be narrower as it will not apply to the kind of technical problems that are normal in running an airline. The Court decided that the technical fault in the case, namely a wiring defect in the fuel valve circuit which could not have been prevented by prior maintenance or prior visual inspection, was not “extraordinary”, and compensation was due.



Unfortunately, there will continue to be a period of uncertainty until the Supreme Court makes a decision on whether it will hear the appeal. We expect that decision to be taken later this year. If the Supreme Court refuses the appeal, then the current judgment will apply. If the Supreme Court accepts that it will hear the appeal, then it will take some time until the case is actually heard, and its judgment issued.



If your compensation claim was for a flight which was disrupted due to a technical problem with the aircraft then you may wish to raise your complaint again with your airline and get confirmation that it will reassess your claim following further clarification from the Supreme Court. If your airline is unwilling to accept your claim, you could consider whether you wish to take the case to a local County Court.



Should you wish to consider taking Court action, it will be important for you to understand any Court action has to be started with your claim being lodged with the Court within 6 years of the date of the flight. The court will not hear claims that have been lodged outside of this period.



We are not able to provide you with legal advice in respect of your claim, but you can get guidance on commencing court proceedings from your local Citizens' Advice Bureau or the Court Service. Please refer to the information provided via the following links:



- http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm

- https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview

- http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/

You should be aware that, until the Supreme Court makes a decision on whether it will hear Jet2’s appeal, any action you take through the courts may be stayed. You should also be aware that, if the Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal, they may take a different decision to the Court of Appeal.



To confirm, your case has been handled and closed by the CAA and regretfully on this occasion we are unable to assist you further. I hope that this information has been helpful.



Yours sincerely





Tina Dunkin

Consumer Affairs Manager



Civil Aviation Authority

CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway, London WC2B 6TE

Telephone: 0207 453 6888

www.caa.co.uk"

NoviceAngel

111KAB wrote: »

Just to confirm appeal was submitted yesterday to the Supreme Court and a decision is not now expected until October or even November as to whether the appeal will be allowed to proceed to a hearing.

Dusary wrote: »

Does anyone know whether Jet2 HAS actually appealed?
They had one month from June 10 to appeal.

Yes as you can see 111KAB posted earlier, ignore the dross from the CAA, get your Claim in to the Court system.

Regards,

NoviceAngel

batman44

My case has been stayed pending the Supreme Court do dah, my objections counted for nowt.

legal_magpie

batman44 wrote: »

My case has been stayed pending the Supreme Court do dah, my objections counted for nowt.

Having just got back from holiday and reviewing the posts for the past couple of weeks, it's clear that many posters (Vauban is a notable exception) don't understand (or don't want to understand) the principle that rulings of higher courts are binding on lower courts but that a decision doesn't become binding until the case is over.

A case is over once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted or if the parties decide not to appeal. So now that Jet2 have applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal decision is in limbo which is why cases will be stayed.

JJ

sging1

batman44 wrote: »

Here are my thoughts, It really needed to go this far as I am sure all will be well in the end, if not the pre Huzar and court plus intrest.
I understand delays happen, so no objections to the 3 hour rule, but when it comes down to 24hours stranded in a far away destination and your mindset in geared for home then the hassel of putting back your duty free's checking your baggage out, loading on a bus, checking in an hotel again then going through it all again the next day is a nightmare period.
24 hrs of your life gone and nothing you can do about it! Contacting your relatives from the other side of the world in the middle of the night or whatever and that if you get your phone sorted. So a few hours is not a problem to me, I have slept at an airports due to strikes by ATC's but aircraft breakdowns are somewhat different.
The regulations were introduced purley for the inconvience and believe me there is a lot of it involved. With my particular incident the airline is covering it up and sweeping it under the carpet as if nothing happened, i could of had a business meeting to attend with millions involved. The airlines are not playing ball with this, so good luck to anyone who takes them on no matter how small the claim, for me the time and effort I have put in to this has turned this into a matter of principle.
People forget that you pay for your ticket for them to deliver on what you paid for, a contract, if they do not complete it then there are penalties to pay, that is business and written into many contracts.

That sounded just like what my party went through but we had 5 hours sat on a TC plane with no food or drink, another three hours back in the terminal with just one official helping everyone find hotels, we had to help several very elderly and disabled people in our party collect very heavy cruise cases that we don't normally see until back in the UK, we were then put in a hotel with steep steps. I found out later that after our 25 hour delay they give us the plane destined for the passengers the next day and delayed them 56 hours in Barbados and they had to phone the British Embassy to help them, that's what TC think of their clients.

On my case., TC has written to the court applying for another 3 month stay pending the SC, on my two and a half year case. I put a strong case to the court myself to get it lifted pointing out some other airlines are now paying out and until someone says different, the high court ruling is current law. I'm awaiting the letter from the court.
I gave TC the chance to pay up without paying the full interest after the HC ruling, I will now take it through the courts all the way to try and get the 8% and any other expenses I have incurred, on the basis of unreasonable behaviour by TC, as we are allowed in the small claims courts. :mad:

chili2001

This Huzar case has played right into the hands of the airlines in my opinion. Stayed cases til God knows when? Some will give up their claims. More won't even bother trying to start one as the refusal to pay and the wait for court action will put them off. Some on here have naively claimed that this is a good thing and once the Huzar case is won in the Supreme Court (if allowed) then it will make it easier to claim for all.
It won't. The standard Thomas Cook fob off letter has already been changed from "It was a technical issue" to "An unexpected safety issue" so it really doesn't matter what laws are passed as all the airlines will still dig their heels in and force court action to receive the required compensation. They have, it seems unlimited resources and money to throw at this regulation to make it go away and I think one day they will sadly if they grease enough palms.