Huzar appeal

David_e

111KAB wrote: »

This input by IATA is likely to influence the Judges that the hearing should proceed ....

Rather ridiculous that it should. It's a trade body so even I can work out they would be for the appeal! Any idea what the CAA are doing, as a matter of interest? In theory, their input should be relevant although what we have seen in practice doesn't suggest they would have anything useful to say.

111KAB

David_e wrote: »

Rather ridiculous that it should. It's a trade body so even I can work out they would be for the appeal! Any idea what the CAA are doing, as a matter of interest? In theory, their input should be relevant although what we have seen in practice doesn't suggest they would have anything useful to say.

If you read the release from TravelMole you will see the CAA are also supporting Jet2 hence the reason many on this forum advise potential claimants not to involve the friend of the airlines - the CAA.

David_e

111KAB wrote: »

If you read the release from TravelMole .

Thanks - I didn't!

At least they have nailed their colours firmly to the airlines' mast.

JPears

Surely the CAA has no remit to be taking sides with the industry against a consumer, when one of the functions of the CAA is to protect the air passenger?
Perhaps members of this forum need to be writing to the CAA for an explanation.
Another good tactic is an FOI request, such as whcih individual or which committee authroised this support for the airlines?
Fortunately, unlike other requests, the CAA is legally bound to reply within a very (for the CAA) short time frame to a FOI request.

David_e

JPears wrote: »

Fortunately, unlike other requests, the CAA is legally bound to reply within a very (for the CAA) short time frame to a FOI request.

I tried with a FoI request to get information on the debacle immediately after the Huzar appeal outcome when they posted nonsense on their website.

They claimed legal privilege. I then asked how that could be when the website announcement was so clearly wrong in law! I did get a response but (as they probably hoped) I didn't follow it up.

JPears

How can they claim legal privilige when they weren't even involved in the case, from a legal perspective.
Indeed on checking the CAA's "strtegic objectives" no mention is made of legal support to an airline against the consumer.
In fact it contradicts their statement; "
Our work is focussed on:

• Enhancing aviation safety performance by pursuing targeted and continuous improvements in systems, culture, processes and capability.
• Improving choice and value for aviation consumers now and in the future by promoting competitive markets, contributing to consumers' ability to make informed decisions and protecting them where appropriate.
• Improving environmental performance through more efficient use of airspace and make an efficient contribution to reducing the aviation industry's environmental impacts.
• Ensuring that the CAA is an efficient and effective organisation which meets Better Regulation principles"

Perhaps NOT should be inserted before focussed? I wonder if Bott & Co will challenge any evidence or support mounted by the CAA?

Tyzap

David_e wrote: »

Any idea what the CAA are doing, as a matter of interest? In theory, their input should be relevant although what we have seen in practice doesn't suggest they would have anything useful to say.

The CAA applied to the Court of Appeal to intervene on behalf of Jet2.
This caused a delay in the legal process while the application was given due consideration by the legal team at Bott and Co and the C of A.

The C of A, via Lord Justice Aikens, rejected their application stating, with regard to the correct construction of the words 'extraordinary circumstances' in article 5(3) of EC Reg 261/2004.

"The CAA is not needed to deal with that argument, given that the appellant has specialist leading counsel to argue the point and doubtless the respondent has suitable council also"

"The material that the CAA contemplates putting before the Court of Appeal seems to be irrelevant to the issue of construction. How the regulation is enforced by the CAA is irrelevant to it's construction. So also is any "guidance" that has been issued by the CAA after the regulation was promulgated. Any material relating to the creation of the guidance is doubly irrelevant to the construction issue"

"There cannot be further evidence on this second appeal and certainly not from a party that is only an 'intervener' "

I believe it's pretty clear for all to see that the CAA's intention was to assist the airline and not the delayed passenger.

I was supported by AESA, the Spanish NEB, who found in my favour but then opposed by the CAA, the British NEB.

How utterly bizarre!

Now IATA, but that is still a live issue.....

Vauban

Yes - the CAA really showed their true colours on that one. No one should have any doubt about to whom they owe their loyalties.

David_e

Tyzap wrote: »

The CAA applied to the Court of Appeal to intervene on behalf of Jet2.

Now that would be worth a FoI request!

111KAB

Law Society release re Huzar. I have to say some of the comments show a lack of knowledge!


http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/thousands-wait-as-airlines-refuse-delay-compensation/5043548.article