Is your case 'STAYED' in the court system?

NoviceAngel

SEW56 wrote: »

following my letter and a date set..

Excellent news!


Can you reveal the contents of your letter, or PM is available !?!

SEW56

My letter... with one or two personal bits removed. I kept and have kept things very simple!

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I am requesting that the stay be removed and the court process recommenced following appeal and Supreme Court judgements and failure of Thomson Airways to respond to my case.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This case was stayed pending two appeals, Huzar vs Jet Airways and Dawson vs Thomson airways. Both appeals failed. The right to appeal further was refused. The stay was then maintained following a request by the defendant to wait for the outcome of a representation to the Supreme Court. On 31st October the Supreme Court declined to hear either appeal and stated that the original judgements stand.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A quote from the judgement: "The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused in Thomson because the application does not raise an arguable point of law; [and] permission to appeal be refused in Jet2.com because the application does not raise a point of law of general public importance and, in relation to the point of European Union law said to be raised by or in response to the application, it is not necessary to request the Court of Justice to give any ruling, because the Court's existing jurisprudence already provides sufficient answer." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The law is now clear: Claimants have 6 years and not 2 to bring their claim and technical faults can not be deemed extraordinary. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Please can the appointed judge now remove the stay and order the defendant back to court at as early a date as possible to try to conclude this matter as it appears this will be the only way to obtain a response.[/FONT]

Vauban

I think this is a great letter SEW56 - cogent and to the point! And it's a great result to get the hearing back on: the airline is now literally defenceless.

I suppose though we should note that the judge in your case was not invited - as I understand it - to offer a view on the significance of the Dutch case, which was not brought to his/her attention. So we shouldn't get too excited just yet about the broader picture ...

Kew73

Kew73 wrote: »

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

Liverpool CC have responded - the stay is lifted!
Further detail posted on Thomson thread.

dp2603

dp2603 wrote: »

Thomson Airways, Stoke on Trent County Court. Stayed pending Dawson. Wrote to the court asking for the stay to be lifted and received the following reply. ''District Judge awaiting reply from the solicitors for the defendant as to the updates regarding appeals.''

Today received a copy of a letter that Thomson have sent to the court. It states that ''as the delay was due to non technical extraordinary circumstances, the Defendant intends to continue with its defence of the claim and awaits further directions in respect of the hearing.''

This is the stage we were at over 12 months ago but the DJ at the time did not wish to hear the extraordinary circumstances pending the result of the Dawson appeal.

NoviceAngel

Quite bizarre, either your delay is because of an EC that relates to a technical problem or not?!?!?

If your case was stayed because of the Huzar appeal then it's logical to assume your delay was because of a technical problem with the aircraft, quite bizarre behaviour from Thomson. Have they said in their defence why your flight was delayed?

As for the Dawson aspect, when was your delay? Inside the two years? I suspect not and Thomson should get their cheque book out!

Vauban

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Quite bizarre, either your delay is because of an EC that relates to a technical problem or not?!?!?

If your case was stayed because of the Huzar appeal then it's logical to assume your delay was because of a technical problem with the aircraft, quite bizarre behaviour from Thomson. Have they said in their defence why your flight was delayed?

As for the Dawson aspect, when was your delay? Inside the two years? I suspect not and Thomson should get their cheque book out!

As I read it, the case was stayed as a result of Dawson - ie the flight was more than 2 years ago. The judge did not want to take a view on extraordinary circumstances until the limitation point had been addressed. Which it obviously now has.

dp2603: you will have had an initial defence from the airline, which will have been filed shortly after you started legal action. What did they say caused your delay?

EDIT: I looked it up - ATC restrictions and weather on an earlier leg of the flight.

NoviceAngel

Yes, that's what I don't understand, if the case was because of the Dawson appeal then it should now be paid, if it was down to an EC, caused by a technical problem, then it also should be now paid. What would be the point of staying a case if it didn't fall into the Dawson or Huzar cases.

It would appear that the case was stayed because of Dawson and now the airline are claiming a non-technical EC ! I think I've got it now.....

batman44

Funny enough my case was stayed by TC on the basis of a tech problem on Huzar, now they lost they claim EC's. Why did they not just carry on with the defence it they are so sure it was EC's?

Shady the lot of em, they are still avoiding paying out.

JPears

The word honest and prefix dis- come to mind.....