Huzar appeal

batman44

legal_magpie wrote: »

Much as I admire Batman, I consider that his suggested letter on the subject of a stay is far too long and overkill. Case of "the Lady doth protest too much methinks".

The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter and its decision is binding on all lower Courts. A short letter to the Court pointing this out and opposing the stay should be enough. Keep your lengthy spiel for the hearing, if necessary. I do not believe that the Courts will grant any further stays.

The response comes out of frustration in their attempts to clutch at straws by going out of country after the SC result did not go their way, long winded yes.

batman44

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I wrote some of it originally - it was three pages long - it did get shortened down with the help of others on here - Vauban made exactly the same point as you, where were you earlier this week? You could have written a reply for us!

Thanks to NoviceAngel I borrowed some of the letter so credit due there from me methinks.

NoviceAngel

batman44 wrote: »

Thanks to NoviceAngel I borrowed some of the letter so credit due there from me methinks.

Well we sort of stole from each other - but I'd like to think we all worked as a team! :beer::D

batman44

All quiet from the airlines, what's going on? No response from one of my claims yet TC. Monarch, well had your threat email and we know where that belongs.

batman44

The letter from Jet2.com making ref to a completely different law saying that should apply here, this was lodged in 2008 and still waiting for an answer from the ECJ (6 years max I think).

The CJ EU is the supreme tribunal for determining questions of European law and a stay will usually be appropriate where a reference is pending before the court (see the White Book Service 2014, volume 2, at p. 2822, citing Johns v Solent SD Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 790).
As a result of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Johns v Solent all such tribunal claims will be stayed pending the outcome of the Heyday case.


This particular case is regarding Employment Law cases, this has nothing to do with Civil Cases or Reg 261/2004.

I will post more where I find it in my research.

NoviceAngel

batman44 wrote: »

This particular case is regarding Employment Law cases, this has nothing to do with Civil Cases or Reg 261/2004.

Really, I'm truly staggered by the letter that was posted earlier this week, it's utter hogwash, from start to finish.

I'm reassured by what Vauban posted that according to 'Bott & Co' that they are already on top of this for their clients and that hopefully any decision made on their cases will filter down to the individual claims for which they do not represent.

I'm one of the latter and checking my post every day ever hopeful that a Judge will take a considered decision in my case, and of course any other case in front of him/her.

Cheers

NoviceAngel

batman44

If you look up the cases quoted you will find they have thrown all sorts of rubbish in. The dutch case has nothing to do with us, quote from the EUJ website

The preliminary reference or preliminary ruling has been instrumental in the development of European law, with most of the Court's better known judgments being delivered under this mechanism. At the request of the national court,URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldeucom/128/12805.htm#note26"]26[/URL the CJ gives its interpretation of the relevant EU law, but the Court does not actually decide the substance of the case. Having given its interpretation, the case returns to the national court for them to decide, based on the CJ's interpretation. On the whole, the CJ is obliged to deal with all cases referred to it.


The UK court has decided

batman44

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Really, I'm truly staggered by the letter that was posted earlier this week, it's utter hogwash, from start to finish.

I'm reassured by what Vauban posted that according to 'Bott & Co' that they are already on top of this for their clients and that hopefully any decision made on their cases will filter down to the individual claims for which they do not represent.

I'm one of the latter and checking my post every day ever hopeful that a Judge will take a considered decision in my case, and of course any other case in front of him/her.

Cheers

NoviceAngel

I am sure they are already on it and the Judges throw this rubbish out.

Vauban

In case not seen, BBC R4's Moneybox had this as their first item this afternoon. You can listen to the feature on BBC iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04p53k7

You can also read the accompanying blog by the presenter, Paul Lewis, here: http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/claim-up-to-470-for-flight-delays.html?m=1

It is very satisfying to see Jet2.com's disgraceful behaviour outed in the media. It is also very telling that the airline didn't want to try to defend their practice, but simply refused to comment. What a pathetic bunch!

NoviceAngel

I would simply add, that Bott & Co were obviously on their tails, and although I missed that money box episode - Mrs is watching the xfactor- catch up on Podcast I'm sure I will (my god sounding more like Yoda every day!) shame on you yet again JET2.COM!

Thanks for posting the link Vauban