Compensation claim against airline

DevCoder

Agreed with DCFC, the defence will also argue why it has taken so long for the OP to bring the matter to ahead.

wealdroam

krisdorey wrote: »

Agreed with DCFC, the defence will also argue why it has taken so long for the OP to bring the matter to ahead.

Is that a defence?

The Limitation Act 1980 allows up to six years (in England and Wales).

jacques_chirac

krisdorey wrote: »

Agreed with DCFC, the defence will also argue why it has taken so long for the OP to bring the matter to ahead.

It is arguments like that that have resulted in so many claimant wins

System

wealdroam wrote: »

Is that a defence?

The Limitation Act 1980 allows up to six years (in England and Wales).

There is debate whether this counts applies for airlines. There is a test case going through at the moment which says airlines are only liable for 2 years. They're probably going to lose but it's not set in stone until next year.

jacques_chirac

goater78 wrote: »

It was over 5 years ago. Is it really worth pursing this now?

The law was not clarified until recently, and indeed still needs further clarification. This is why so many claims are from some years ago, but still within the status of limitations.

jacques_chirac

goater78 wrote: »

There is debate whether this counts applies for airlines. There is a test case going through at the moment which says airlines are only liable for 2 years. They're probably going to lose but it's not set in stone until next year.

Do you have the name of this case please? The main questions raised by the airlines relate to what constitutes extraordinary circumstances.

System

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Do you have the name of this case please? The main questions raised by the airlines relate to what constitutes extraordinary circumstances.

Dawson appeal.

Thomsons are claiming they should only be bound by the Montreal convention which says 2 years. They lost but are appealing and that will be decided next year.

I think they will lose but who knows with things like this!

jacques_chirac

goater78 wrote: »

Dawson appeal.

Thomsons are claiming they should only be bound by the Montreal convention which says 2 years. They lost but are appealing and that will be decided next year.

I think they will lose but who knows with things like this!

Yes, it is nothing more than a delaying tactic. The EU cases make it clear that the Regulation is distinct from the MC, and Thomson are the only ones that have not conceded on this. I would not go as far as suggesting there is debate on the issue, just one airline spitting the dummy

System

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Yes, it is nothing more than a delaying tactic. The EU cases make it clear that the Regulation is distinct from the MC, and Thomson are the only ones that have not conceded on this. I would not go as far as suggesting there is debate on the issue, just one airline spitting the dummy

Yes but they must have some hope they will win otherwise they wouldn't bother.

I don't think they will win but they must have some legal representation who think they have a chance.

duchy

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but they must have some hope they will win otherwise they wouldn't bother.

I don't think they will win but they must have some legal representation who think they have a chance.

It's all tax deductable and it's probably their inhouse legal dept -so not a lot to lose by trying no matter how poor the chances.