Huzar appeal

socrates1882

NoviceAngel wrote: »

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

Courts like consistency. An excuse to stay whilst this question is answered definitively is their dream scenario.

JPears

David_e wrote: »

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.

IMHO, no. Because the airline must leap 2 hurdles as part of Wallentin. The EC test and All reasonable measures. AFAIK, If the Huzar appeal is successful, it will put the claimant back at the position pre HHJ Platts statement. At cannot affect Wallentin, Reg 261/2004 etc and most people were successful in their claims pre Huzar.
Admittedly it will likely make the bluster, procrastination and general underhand tactics from the airlines and associated legal firms worse than it is at present, if that's possible.

NoviceAngel

David_e wrote: »

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.

I agree with you both, doesn't it depend on the individual case?

A case where an electrical/mechanical problem causes a delay - the airlines say 'EC' and that would be affected by the Court of Appeal ruling regading Huzar. HHJ Platts thinks diferently.

On the other hand, a case where an airport worker accidentially causes damage to a plane by driving some steps into the door, can also be seen by the airlines as an 'EC' but somewhat does not really fall into the Huzar judgement - does it?

So wouldn't it be each case on it's on merits SHOULD the appeal be granted and that Jet2 are eventually successful in their appeal.

Cheers

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

IMHO, no. Because the airline must leap 2 hurdles as part of Wallentin. The EC test and All reasonable measures. AFAIK, If the Huzar appeal is successful, it will put the claimant back at the position pre HHJ Platts statement. At cannot affect Wallentin, Reg 261/2004 etc and most people were successful in their claims pre Huzar.
Admittedly it will likely make the bluster, procrastination and general underhand tactics from the airlines and associated legal firms worse than it is at present, if that's possible.

I can see where your coming from.

The Court of Appeal are bound by Wallentin.

The Court of Appeal may rule that HHJ Platts was wrong and that a mechanical/electrical failure can be regarded as an EC. So therefore back to the Wallentin Judgement.

You state that well, even I can follow it JP, but I do agree with David that the lower courts may be less likely to award compensation - it really doesn't solve any issue, the best outcome, and I would argue (also for the airlines) is to have permission to appeal refused. Then the matter is clear, they need to start paying out legitimate claims under (EC) 261/2004. It will also save many hundreds of Court cases entering the system needlessly and enable quick prompt payment by the airlines. You never know, airlines might even start to take their responsibility of getting passengers to their destination on time seriously.

Cheers

NoviceAngel

JPears

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I can see where your coming from.

The Court of Appeal are bound by Wallentin.

The Court of Appeal may rule that HHJ Platts was wrong and that a mechanical/electrical failure can be regarded as an EC. So therefore back to the Wallentin Judgement.

You state that well, even I can follow it JP, but I do agree with David that the lower courts may be less likely to award compensation - it really doesn't solve any issue, the best outcome, and I would argue (also for the airlines) is to have permission to appeal refused. Then the matter is clear, they need to start paying out legitimate claims under (EC) 261/2004. It will also save many hundreds of Court cases entering the system needlessly and enable quick prompt payment by the airlines. You never know, airlines might even start to take their responsibility of getting passengers to their destination on time seriously.

Cheers

NoviceAngel

The lower courts should be any less likely than pre Huzar since nothing has changed. If the appeal is successful, presumably the actual outcome is that HHJ Platts statement is incorrect BUT that cannot then be used as an extrapolation for further refusals of an extended list of claimed ECs.
It would prefer that permission to appeal is not granted, to reduce risk at appeal hearing and to expediate those claims currently stayed. However, ideally the appeal hearing is granted but then unsuccessful as this really would stamp authority in no uncertain terms that Techs are NOT ECs. Its a double edged sword.

Trigger16

A quick update. I have been in court and objected to Thomson's request to stay the hearing. I countered that I had removed all reference to Huzar and felt that the legislation and Wallentin were clear enough to continue with the case. The DJ agreed to the stay advising that if he allowed the hearing to continue it could create the potential for an appeal on either side, depending on the outcome of the Huzar appeal.

As the case is EC based that was a wasted day!!!

NoviceAngel

Trigger16 wrote: »

A quick update. I have been in court and objected to Thomson's request to stay the hearing. I countered that I had removed all reference to Huzar and felt that the legislation and Wallentin were clear enough to continue with the case. The DJ agreed to the stay advising that if he allowed the hearing to continue it could create the potential for an appeal on either side, depending on the outcome of the Huzar appeal.

As the case is EC based that was a wasted day!!!

Sorry to hear your news, a difficult decision to understand.

In my case I haven't even mentioned the word 'Huzar' and Jet2 are requesting a stay.

This really is a crazy situation to be in, when the appeal, if granted goes ahead, and let's imagine they win. Then there will be an onslaught on the judicial system as all there 'stayed' cases become live again. - As JP points out - it just takes us a step back pre-Huzar - Wallentin doesn't change!

I keep having to pinch myself and remind me that they haven't even been granted permission to appeal yet. Perhaps someone should remind the DJ.

Surely, the law and Wallentin as interpreted by HHJ Platts should be applied as it stands now. Jet2 state they require further clarification, I don't see how clearer HHJ Platts could have been.

Simply a ridiculous, dreadful situation.

NoviceAngel - (goes to a dark room for a rest)

JPears

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Sorry to hear your news, a difficult decision to understand.
.....

Simply a ridiculous, dreadful situation.

NoviceAngel - (goes to a dark room for a rest)

Yes dear, have a lie down

David_e

JPears wrote: »

The lower courts should be any less likely than pre Huzar since nothing has changed. If the appeal is successful, presumably the actual outcome is that HHJ Platts statement is incorrect BUT that cannot then be used as an extrapolation for further refusals of an extended list of claimed ECs.

The more I think about it the more my brain hurts!

I take the point that the appeal is on the EC aspect and so the reasonable measures point is still there to be argued.

I don't understand the mechanism by which EU law binds UK courts but, as I understand it, it does to a significant extent. All the more curious then that some UK courts have contrived to not follow Wallentin (which looks like pure and simple lack of proper reading on the ruling) and that the consideration of an appeal is even being countenanced by whoever makes these decisions. Why is it that they cannot look at Wallentim in one hand and Huzar in the other and conclude that Huzar is absolutely in line with the European case - which we/I assume to be a binding precedent!

NoviceAngel isn't the only one who needs a lie down!

legal_magpie

This all seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing. Of course the CA is bound by Wallentin but it could be argued that Huzar went further than Wallentin. They haven't got permission yet. It might be better to wait and see if they get it. Even if Huzar is overturned on appeal it simply takes us back to where we were.
BUT I would be minded to ask the Court not to impose a stay until they airline have disclosed their statements so that you know exactly what their case is.
JJ