Huzar appeal

NoviceAngel

mrtonygibson wrote: »

I have just received a letter from the judge at Mansfield CC ordering Bird and Bird to confirm to the court by 2pm on 17th December the anticipated time scale of the CJEU case to deliver its opinion in Van Der Lans v KLM.

That's not good news, shows that the Court is possibly considering a further 'stay'.

NoviceAngel

mrtonygibson wrote: »

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."

But Bott did make a reference to the CJEU in the Huzar case, or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

Tyzap wrote: »

Courtesy of Bott and Co, this is the submission from Jet2.com made to the Supreme Court as part of their appeal.

It's the reference to the Dutch case which the Supreme Court subsequently rejected.

If you have been requested to agree to a further stay, pending the Dutch case, I would suggest you do not agree to it and quote the following passage that was rejected by the Supreme Court. Lower Courts will have to follow suit.



Ronald Huzar v jet2.com Limited

Section 7 - REFERENCE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

The present case has features which suggest that a preliminary reference to the CJEU is appropriate. In particular:

- the outcome turns on the interpretation of EU legislation which must necessarily be the same in each Member State

- some language versions of that legislation are inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeal

- regulatory authorities in other Member States continue to stand by the interpretation of the EU regulation which was contained in the CAA’s guidance, now withdrawn, and which is inconsistent with the position taken by the Court of Appeal

- one court has already made a preliminary reference to the CJEU on issues which are similar to those determined by the Court of Appeal (the District Court of Amsterdam in Van Der Lans v KLM, judgement of 29 April 2014), so the CJEU can be expected, in the medium term, to rule on the issues which are before this court.

If, contrary to the appellant’s primary position, the interpretation of article 5(3) is not acte clair, a reference should be made.

mrtonygibson

Already included copy of SC order and requested add to file list in objection letter Vauban

Vauban

mrtonygibson wrote: »

Already included copy of SC order and requested add to file list in objection letter Vauban

Very good - let us know what the Judge decides.

Jet2.com cannot say with certainty how long this Dutch case is going to take to resolve (not that it is especially relevant to your case given English rulings) - but it is telling that they do not consider it significant that you should expect to wait a further year before you get what is owed to you.

JPears

NoviceAngel wrote: »

But Bott did make a reference to the CJEU in the Huzar case, or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

Do you mean Jet2/2Bs made reference to it? Not Bott, other than to point it out to us?
Look at Jet2 bleating about other regulatory/enforcement bodies and "the list" - now totally "dissed" by UK courts. :eek:
Strange how the airlines mostly ignore said "enforcement" bodies when they find in the claimant's favour.
We all play by the rules but as has been mentioned on another thread, airlines just make theirs up and ignore others.:(

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

Do you mean Jet2/2Bs made reference to it? Not Bott, other than to point it out to us?

Yes, I did get the wrong end of the stick, that's what happens with a couple of days off! That will teach me:mad:

I meant to say that Jet2 had used the CJEU Van der Lans reference in the Huzar case and the SC rejected it.

Vauban

I see that the CAA have responded to Bott's question about why they have provided misleading legal advice (again) by refusing to answer the question. You can read their underwhelming reply here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/239093/response/587910/attach/html/3/20141124Reply.pdf.html.

At least they have amended their website to remove the most egregious errors. Though shall we run a special Professor the Lord Vauban Xmas Competition? Who can spot the mistake in their revised advice? A bottle of my finest homebrew to the winner ...

legal_magpie

I suspect that it is item 33, the reference to crew out of hours caused by poor planning by the airline itself. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio.

Vauban

As Roy Walker used to say on Catchphrase, "It's good, but its not right. Keep buzzing."

legal_magpie

Ah, I should have looked more carefully. The CAA say that this is NOT extraordinary. I suspect that it may be 20 (preceding flight. The Finnair case?)