Huzar appeal

Swap-a-Lease

I don't know what the financial impact of Monarch Airlines Ltd paying all the potential claims out - should the Huzar vs Jet2 decision finally stand as good law - but it would probably be an option [their advisors no doubt putting plans in place for worst case scenario] for Monarch Airlines Ltd to go into Administration/Receivership before being bought out/restructured so as to dump the claim liability.....any thoughts? Can a plan be put in place to hold the Directors to account for dereliction of duty if this happens?

legal_magpie

It's a nice thought but neither practical nor legal. If the Directors have been advised that Huzar (and Dawson for that matter) have a chance of success they are right not to pay out at this stage as they have a duty to their shareholders not to pay out claims unless they have to. I know that this view won't be popular here but legally it's sound. Morally is another question.

stevemej123

We have a claim going back 2 years with Jet2. Just before the 2 year anniversary we sent an nba but didn't actually get a court claim going.The reason for thisis on the basis that if Jet2 are successful in their attempt to get an appeal it would be a waste of £80 and if they are unsuccessful then payment will likely be made without a court case.
the question is this: With a successful court case 8% interest is payable on top of the compensation sum. Is this the case if they pay out without a court case?
I'm pretty fed up with the way Jet2 have handled this complaint and want to get as much from them as possible.

Can somebody advise please.

Vauban

Probably not. Interest is at the discretion of the judge. If Jet2 offer to settle for the amount owed, a judge may consider it vexatious if you proceed to court.

On another point, by not starting a court claim before two years, you have also made your win contingent on another legal case before the Supreme Court - Dawson. My guide (last link on the main sticky) has the background.

stevemej123

i thought the dawson case was lost by the airlines. thats the main reason we didnt proceed before the anniversary.

Vauban

It was lost in the same way Huzar was lost: in the Court of Appeal. Both are now before the Supreme Court. If Huzar is lost your case becomes tricky; if Dawon is lost you have no case.

NoviceAngel

Thinking about the many cases that I have read about on here, it's clear that that Courts were not always acting in-line with the EC 261/2004 regs.

The Huzar case has strengthened claimants positions and no doubt in time the SC will further reject Jet2s application.

My question is, what happens then? I wonder if it will be like the PPI scandal? The airlines trawling through historic data and sending cheques out? My view is that very little will change, and the airlines will be even more determined to weedle themselves out of paying legitimate claims. I hope I'm wrong.

NoviceAngel

JPears

stevemej123 wrote: »

We have a claim going back 2 years with Jet2. Just before the 2 year anniversary we sent an nba but didn't actually get a court claim going.The reason for thisis on the basis that if Jet2 are successful in their attempt to get an appeal it would be a waste of £80 and if they are unsuccessful then payment will likely be made without a court case.
the question is this: With a successful court case 8% interest is payable on top of the compensation sum. Is this the case if they pay out without a court case?
I'm pretty fed up with the way Jet2 have handled this complaint and want to get as much from them as possible.

Can somebody advise please.

And there is no surety J2 will pay out even if they are denied the leave to appeal or loose the appeal, without you taking them to court.

111KAB

IATA are going to support the airlines in the Supreme Court should the Court allow Jet2 to appeal the Huzar decision. This input by IATA is likely to influence the Judges that the hearing should proceed ....


http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2013306&c=setreg&region=2

richardw

IATA seem to be ignoring the patently obvious that the Supreme Court is not appropriate for this case, so why bother.