Huzar appeal

Mark2spark

Mr T G, the current consensus of opinion is that, if and until the ECJ makes some kind of further decision or ruling regarding EU261/2004, then the current status quo, ie that it is up to each individual Country of the EU to decide, stands, and *that* is that tech issues etc have been appealed right up to Supreme Court and that they are not extraordinary unless they are caused by a third party.
If you don't resist 2B's efforts at stalling, you will be in limbo for years on end.
You don't just get to write to a Court on a weekly basis and have some sort of case conference as to whether to proceed or not. Each case, once directions have been given, stands static for month upon month. You simply have to seize your chance once it arises.

mrtonygibson

Does anyone know when the first re-opened case by Bott & Co against Jet2 is due to be heard challenging the gravitas of the Amsterdam case?

stevemej

mrtonygibson wrote: »

As an individual claimant who has received the stay request from two birds I am basically stuck on the fence at the moment awaiting to see whether the County Court at Mansfield agrees to this stay. Surely the County Courts will receive guidance as to wether this EU case holds water against the Supreme Court decision? Failing this I would assume that once one or two courts have heard cases similar to mine, that the whole pack of cards will tumble down should the decisions find in favour of the claimants. I think that this will unravel quite soon after the cases opposing stays have been heard so lets hope that this will be brought to a head in the next few weeks. Get ready for the Jet3 phoenix should this happen.

Are you saying you think they will go bust to avoid paying out. AFAIK Jet2 are a profitable company and they have reported putting £17M to one side for when they finally admit defeat.

mrtonygibson

I would not trust Jet2 as far as I could throw them. I think they would try any tactic other than accept the inevitable. That is the way of the world today unfortunately.

legal_magpie

You are quite right that, having given the Defendant until 17th December to respond, there is no point in your contacting the Court before that date except to see if they have heard from the Defendant as the Judge is not going to make any orders until that date has passed unless, of course, they reply to say that they give in. But once that date has passed you should follow it up with all vigour.

mrtonygibson

I have just today received this letter from Bird & Bird replying to the Judges request for information on the time scale regarding the KLM case. "We write further to and in accordance with the Order of District Judge Davies dated 17 November 2014 (attached). In compliance with the Order, it is anticipated that the CJEU shall deliver its judgment in the matter of van der Lans v. KLM within approximately 12 months. It is noted this is approximately the same timescale as would have been applicable had a reference to the CJEU been made in the matter of Huzar."

legal_magpie

OK. So now you follow Vauban's advice and write to the Court pointing out that the Supreme Court's decision is binding and that a further stay should be refused especially as Jet2 are not a party to the on-going proceedings and as such cannot say how long it will take given that they have no influence.

mrtonygibson

Already onto it letter drafted and will be posted in the next post. Thanks for your help and advice all

JPears

mrtonygibson wrote: »

I have just today received this letter from Bird & Bird replying to the Judges request for information on the time scale regarding the KLM case. "We write further to and in accordance with the Order of District Judge Davies dated 17 November 2014 (attached). In compliance with the Order, it is anticipated that the CJEU shall deliver its judgment in the matter of van der Lans v. KLM within approximately 12 months. It is noted this is approximately the same timescale as would have been applicable had a reference to the CJEU been made in the matter of Huzar."

Last paragraph is a red herring IMHO, irrelevent as no reference was made and the SC made it quite clear that was the cse, if I read the various papers correctly. Once again J2O et L2Bs try it on again.

Vauban

mrtonygibson wrote: »

Already onto it letter drafted and will be posted in the next post. Thanks for your help and advice all

Make sure you enclose a copy of the Supreme Court's order - which says explicitly that the law on these points is now clear. Here's the link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f8b69w397rsab5u/Supreme%20Court%20Huzar%20Dawson.pdf?dl=0