Is your case 'STAYED' in the court system?

glentoran99

batman44 wrote: »

TC have confirmed stay to be lifted and proceed to trial Manchester County court

So they are still fighting then?

richardw

batman44 wrote: »

TC have confirmed stay to be lifted and proceed to trial Manchester County court

Perhaps read up about unreasonable conduct and civil procedure rules.

NoviceAngel

richardw wrote: »

Perhaps read up about unreasonable conduct and civil procedure rules.

I've just posted in the TC thread about Batmans case, TC would be foolish to pursue this one!

MGOR

Thomsons @ Liverpool Court stayed due to Huzar. Wrote to both Thomson and the Court on 1st November asking for stay to be lifted. No response yet from either

NoviceAngel

MGOR wrote: »

Thomsons @ Liverpool Court stayed due to Huzar. Wrote to both Thomson and the Court on 1st November asking for stay to be lifted. No response yet from either

Out of interest do Liverpudlians still class themselves as living in Merseyside? One of the most unexpected things I'm learning about in this thread is the Counties of the Uk.

I never knew that Greater Manchester was a County in its own right, always thought it was Lancashire - I blame those motorway signs!

MGOR

Merseyside was an artificial County created in the 70's as part of a local government reform and now long since abolished. Liverpool apart from having it's own unique identity was part of the original County of Lancashire. If you ask most people from Liverpool I suspect that they will identify themselves with Liverpool but certainly not Merseyside and possibly Lancashire (older generation!) There is a tradition in Lancashire when toasting the Queen at formal events that the toast is 'The Queen the Duke of Lancaster'.

111KAB

MGOR wrote: »

There is a tradition in Lancashire when toasting the Queen at formal events that the toast is 'The Queen the Duke of Lancaster'.

Depends upon what function you attend as the last one I went to the toast was 'The Queen and Ron Huzar'.

MGOR

There will be a toast or 2 to Mr Huzar as and when Thomson send over payment. I still have my doubts it will now be that easy and fully expect there to be hiccups on the way. I hope I'm wrong and that common sense will prevail

Vauban

MGOR wrote: »

There will be a toast or 2 to Mr Huzar as and when Thomson send over payment. I still have my doubts it will now be that easy and fully expect there to be hiccups on the way. I hope I'm wrong and that common sense will prevail

I had assumed that the airlines would see sense, recognise that they had lost their guerrilla campaign against the Regulation, and pay up. However, it doesn't look like this is going to happen.

The bad news is that, for those who think this is still a letter writing exercise - where a template email will get you your money - they will be disappointed. Unless you are one of the lucky one, the airlines are still making you work for it.

The good news is that, with the conclusion of the Huzar case, airlines have lost their legal defence, where a technical problem caused the delay. So they are now simply "all mouth and trousers", without legal substance to back up their recalcitrance. Indeed, their entire position is now based on one big bluff, which claimants simply need to have the confidence to call. I think I am right in saying that, in all the cases that have come to court post-Supreme Court, the airline has settled in full - with interest - before it goes in front of a judge. I think that's pretty telling, don't you?

So if the airlines are messing you about, get a legal claim started without further delay.

Kew73

Thomson @ Liverpool Court stayed due to Huzar and Dawson. Wrote to both Thomson and the Court on 4th November asking for stay to be lifted. No response yet from either