Huzar appeal

DrA_Harrogate

We shall have to wait and see! My own interpretation is that the airlines are anxiously forecasting the demise of their 'cheap flights for all' business model. If the final ruling establishes the rights of passengers to compensation then they will have to have extra aircraft, crews and goodness knows what to avoid the horribly expensive risk of paying substantial sums to late planes full of passengers.


It is probably not realistic merely to put up their fares to compensate (as many have stated), as the laws of economics paint the ghastly (for them) possibility of fewer people flying and gross income actually falling!


So some airlines are quietly paying up if asked and hoping not too many people notice, others are calculating that paying loads to expensive lawyers will pay them in the end.

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie wrote: »

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

Interesting point of view, but is it shared by Bott & Co? With reference to an earlier post of mine

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”.

It will be interesting to see which legal view prevails as a lay person I've no idea.

Or are you in actual fact in agreement by saying in the real world 'it should not be sufficient' but back in the real world it actually is?

Ohh I'm confused yet again.......

Regards,

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Or are you in actual fact in agreement by saying in the real world 'it should not be sufficient' but back in the real world it actually is?
Regards,
NoviceAngel

The clue to this is the word "yesterday" in Bott's post which was obviously written the day after the hearing in the Court of Appeal.
There is all the difference in the world between an intention to appeal and an actual appeal especially one to the Supreme Court.

This is even more so when the case in question is a major test case the outcome of which will effect hundreds if not thousands of cases.
Can you imagine the chaos there would be if all those thousands of cases were heard up and down the country followed by possible appeals and even possibly the prospect of "winners" having to repay the compensation if the appeal succeeded.

I know that this is an unpopular view but, let's face it, none of the cases are desperately urgent and it is better to have certainty.
JJ

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie wrote: »

The clue to this is the word "yesterday" in Bott's post which was obviously written the day after the hearing in the Court of Appeal.
There is all the difference in the world between an intention to appeal and an actual appeal especially one to the Supreme Court.

JJ

Yeah I actually understand your point of view, although it pains me to say it, It will be an interesting thread of argument on both sides, I feel we both want the same outcome but someone with more of a trained legal view can take a step back which is difficult for us that just want due compensation for what we feel is a dreadful service.

Respect your input JJ

NoviceAngel

batman44

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Interesting point of view, but is it shared by Bott & Co? With reference to an earlier post of mine

It will be interesting to see which legal view prevails as a lay person I've no idea.

Or are you in actual fact in agreement by saying in the real world 'it should not be sufficient' but back in the real world it actually is?

Ohh I'm confused yet again.......

Regards,

NoviceAngel

I put that in my objections to the court word for word and the judge concidered, he said in view of the "overiding objectives" in this matter the case is stayed pending decision or outcome of the appeal to the SC.

Now I have been pondering on the defence, I am not going to say much on here yet as i know they read the threads so, if you think you know me TC solicitors your case has broken down before we really got started. Why are you requesting a stay if you are certain of the fault? You know that it is covered by the regs, ie, extreme "weather" was the cause as you say, you know, and I defo know what the true cause was and the evidence I am going to produce is irrefutable!

chili2001

batman44 wrote: »

I put that in my objections to the court word for word and the judge concidered, he said in view of the "overiding objectives" in this matter the case is stayed pending decision or outcome of the appeal to the SC.

Now I have been pondering on the defence, I am not going to say much on here yet as i know they read the threads so, if you think you know me TC solicitors your case has broken down before we really got started. Why are you requesting a stay if you are certain of the fault? You know that it is covered by the regs, ie, extreme "weather" was the cause as you say, you know, and I defo know what the true cause was and the evidence I am going to produce is irrefutable!

That's strange then. Do the judges actually bother to look at the individual cases before automatically rubber stamping a stay on them as if TC are relying on the weather as their defense and not a technical fault then it makes the Huzar judgement totally irrelevant to your claim thus should be allowed to continue surly?

batman44

chili2001 wrote: »

That's strange then. Do the judges actually bother to look at the individual cases before automatically rubber stamping a stay on them as if TC are relying on the weather as their defense and not a technical fault then it makes the Huzar judgement totally irrelevant to your claim thus should be allowed to continue surly?

That's correct, i think the judge knows the defence is not true as he mentions "In this case alledged" incident. They say they took notice of the defence and claimants submissions, what i think is happening is that if the airlines fail then they will rubber stamp in favour of the claimants without hearings, as that would be within the power of the courts if the defence is almost certain to fail.

chili2001

But my point was why was TC allowed to request a stay based on Huzar at all when they aren't relying on it? Unless of course their defense is a total lie. They wouldn't lie to a court would they? ;-)
Your case should not have been stayed at all.

legal_magpie

All this pontificating is very well but we lawyers have to give advice to real people who are paying for our services and we have to live in the real world. We have to give "best advice".
The fact is that unless both parties agree that their cases are not affected by the Huzar judgment (e.g. an argument about whether bad weather was bad enough) the vast majority of judges will grant a stay and I would be very reluctant to advise a client to spend good money arguing before a judge whether or not a stay should be granted. Obviously if the client insisted, I would carry out those instructions.
I'm sure that there are lawyers who would be happy to take a fee "to have a go" and then say to the client afterwards "Well, the Judge was against us", but I'm not one of them.
My criteria has always been
"I'd rather tell you today why you won't win, than tell you in 3 months' time why you didn't win" (having paid a large sum in the process)
Perhaps I'm old fashioned as well as old
JJ

glentoran99

What is the point in the CAA?

---

23 July 2014





Our Ref: 150-148



Dear Mr Xxxxx



RE: Monarch



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 <https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview&gt; from your local Citizens' Advice Bureau<http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/small_claims.htm&gt; or the Court Service<http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk>. 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,





Harriet Merna

Consumer Affairs Officer

Market and Consumers Group

Civil Aviation Authority

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

Telephone: 0207 453 6888

https://www.caa.co.uk



Airline/Airport:

It is PACT’s policy to forward any airline/airport reply about an individual case to the complainant. It is imperative that any information that you consider is confidential, is identified as such.



Passenger:

The information you supply to us will be used by us to provide advice or resolve your complaint. This will usually involve sharing the information with the airline or airport you are complaining about.



The CAA’s passenger portal can be found at www.caa.co.uk/passengers<http://www.caa.co.uk/passengers&gt;



**********************************************************************

Before Printing consider the environment.



This e-mail and any attachment(s) are for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail, as well as any associated attachment(s) and inform the sender. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.