Huzar appeal

batman44

legal_magpie wrote: »

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?)

Funny enough just had a look at that list, with the huzar tech issues taken out. Going to use that in my bundle as the airline claims EC's yet CAA asked them to review my case so who is telling porkies?

Vauban

legal_magpie wrote: »

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?)

That wasn't my thinking. I'll give you a clue: it's on the main page itself (ie not the list) and though technically not incorrect, it is incomplete and therefore potentially quite misleading.

dino25uk

"Passengers who are considering taking court action can choose to issue their claim in the country where their flight departed or where it arrived, and it will be up to the relevant court to decide on the case proceeding as it sees fit. "
From my experience you take up the claim in the country where the Airline has it's head office.

Vauban

Dino wins!

NoviceAngel

dino25uk wrote: »

"Passengers who are considering taking court action can choose to issue their claim in the country where their flight departed or where it arrived, and it will be up to the relevant court to decide on the case proceeding as it sees fit. "
From my experience you take up the claim in the country where the Airline has it's head office.

I'm sure Dr Watson would have something to say about that, I also find the preceding statement quite odd '
This judgment is only binding on the courts in England and Wales, although it may be persuasive in Scotland, Northern Ireland or other parts of the EU. The CAA will apply the judgment in its work, but other National Enforcement Bodies across the EU are not required to follow it.'

While it may be technically correct, it's shows the CAA are furious about the judgement and are now recommending that the other NEBs ignore our SC decision!

Dr_Watson

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I'm sure Dr Watson would have something to say about that,

It is of course correct, but not a way I would go about instigating legal proceedings. The ESCP is in place for claims of a cross border nature and would be my tool of choice for this.
I'm still perplexed by the recent ongoings over in the Irish Courts (documented on the Ryanair Thread), well, not the ongoings -that is to be expected, but why the case is being heard there in the first place?
Again -not the thread for this discussion so i'll leave my two penneth here.

mrtonygibson

So does this mean that cases heard in the uk will be forced to abide by the Supreme Court decision?

NoviceAngel

mrtonygibson wrote: »

So does this mean that cases heard in the uk will be forced to abide by the Supreme Court decision?

Absolutely, by its own definition, it is the Supreme Court and any decision made is binding on all lower courts.

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Absolutely, by its own definition, it is the Supreme Court and any decision made is binding on all lower courts.

Not according to 2Birds,

2Birds wrote:

our client considers that the outcome of van der Lans is directly applicable to your matter as any ruling on the same shall be binding not only on the national court on whose initiative the reference for a preliminary ruling was made but also on all of the national courts of the Member States.

I guess our Supreme Court doesn't really matter then?

JPears

which is in direct conflict wih the Reg itslef and Wallentin judgement.
Come on Jet2 accept defeat and stop wasting your shareholders' money lining the coffers of deux oiseaux.
And giving Yorkshire a bad name .......