Is your case 'STAYED' in the court system?

mrtonygibson

Thanks for the above information Batman, however I still cannot get my head around why this district court judge is considering the case in Amsterdam as a possible reason for a stay and therefore a defence for Jet2. Should this decision to stay be upheld I assume the Judge must have reasons to believe that it could take precedent over the Supreme Court ruling?

Vauban

mrtonygibson wrote: »

Thanks for the above information Batman, however I still cannot get my head around why this district court judge is considering the case in Amsterdam as a possible reason for a stay and therefore a defence for Jet2. Should this decision to stay be upheld I assume the Judge must have reasons to believe that it could take precedent over the Supreme Court ruling?

You are presupposing that s/he is properly conversant with Huzar and the Supreme Court. Or with how the Court of Appeal decision relates to the referral to the ECJ. But they may well not be. This could be a Deputy District Judge, not familiar with the Regulation or the recent history of the cases. And in my experience, District Judges don't need much of an excuse to stay a case if they think a higher court is deliberating the same issue (which is what they've been told by Jet2's lawyers).

If the judge upholds the stay, that's because s/he won't have been exposed to the counter-arguments! But as I am starting to repeat myself, I won't offer any further comment. Except to say that Fortis Fortuna adjuvat!

batman44

mrtonygibson wrote: »

Thanks for the above information Batman, however I still cannot get my head around why this district court judge is considering the case in Amsterdam as a possible reason for a stay and therefore a defence for Jet2. Should this decision to stay be upheld I assume the Judge must have reasons to believe that it could take precedent over the Supreme Court ruling?

As Vauban has said most members on this forum have followed this process from the start and the Huzar case from it's beginings, we know Jet2.com are operating, they are on there own now as other airlines have conceeded, including mine and lifted the stay.
Only 2 birds have the cheek to take it further and con more money from Jet2.com. The dutch case in question is a referal of a question from a district court that has already been answered by the ECJ in Wallentin and Sturgeon, this will then go back to the refering court for them to make the decision. How can you expect a smaller court in Holland to overide a decision made here in the High Court and the Supreme Court? Member states do not overide each other and it is for the law of the member state to interprate the regs in how they see fit.
The supreme court would not refer it so how can a decision be made on it from another country and to become law here? Not going to happen, 2 birds have already used this argument in the submission to the Supreme court and they through it out- simples.
Vauban has already mentioned use what we have told you and it is for you to explain to the judge who may not be aware of whats been going on, why a stay should not be put in place again.

JPears

Also TonyG, you have no idea what les deux oiseaux/jet2 have told the judge, but you can be fairly sure it will most likely be a onesided arguement in their favour, conveniently leaving out information for a judge to make a balanced decision here.
You are dealing with legal firms here, their "art" being smoke, mirrors and specious arguments.
You need to present the balance.

Mark2spark

JP goes some way further of nailing the real issue that Tony G isn't aware of, being relatively new.
That is that 2 B's will say pretty much anything to a court if it gains them just one millimetre on the journey of resisting paying out.
Here, 2 B's are hoping that a relatively inexperienced judge will hear their claim for a stay, and that they will present it in a way that makes it appear that it is going to be a major turning point in the way that the whole of Europe addresses future claims under this regulation.
The truth is that it is nothing of the sort. The Dutch court have also been bamboozled into referring a Q to the ECJ, when it has already been answered in previous cases.
The answer (to the Dutch question) is that it is up to each Country to determine how to interpret the Regulation. And as the Court of Appeal here has dissected it (by 3 top judges) and come out in favour of the consumer, that is the binding LAW of this land.

greigster

Monarch......Stayed... Lowestoft

mrtonygibson

Latest update also posted on Huzar thread as 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."

mrtonygibson

My objection to the stay has now been sent to the County Court and copied to the birds who have acknowledged receipt of my objection.
Watch this space for further developments

NoviceAngel

mrtonygibson wrote: »

would have been applicable had a reference to the CJEU been made in the matter of Huzar."

But it was! they made the reference and the SC rejected it! - note to others - see Huzar thread.

SEW56

The judge has now removed the stay following my letter and a date set. Still no response from Thomson.