Is your case 'STAYED' in the court system?

NoviceAngel

NSS wrote: »

Email and letter to Thomson brought no reply so letter now sent to court requesting stay be lifted and a new hearing date set (copied to Thomson).

My prediction, for what it's worth, you will get a hearing date, Thomson will then write to you as they no longer have any defence, and you will get a settlement with or without a gagging clause.

NSS

NoviceAngel wrote: »

My prediction, for what it's worth, you will get a hearing date, Thomson will then write to you as they no longer have any defence, and you will get a settlement with or without a gagging clause.

I hope you're right, but I can't help thinking there's another twist to come in this saga.

joolywooly

Thomson, Northampton County Court, stayed pending Dawson

Strange, I thought there were many more of these 'stayed' cases. No reply from Thomson asking for settlement following unsuccessful appeal, have now contacted court to ask for stay to be lifted.

NoviceAngel

joolywooly wrote: »

Strange, I thought there were many more of these 'stayed' cases.

You're not the only one, well Monarch have said they have at least 900+ cases, I guess our little forum - is just that little - compared with the number of cases out there. Doesn't stop us fighting for justice though :)

fubar4164

Details above. Still stayed.

NSS

Letter received from Portsmouth County Court today. District Judge has ordered that:

Upon receipt of a letter from the Claimant (the one I sent 29/11)

1. List on notice to all parties for a Case Management Conference on 28th January.

Any idea what that will likely entail?

NoviceAngel

NSS wrote: »

Letter received from Portsmouth County Court today. District Judge has ordered that:

Upon receipt of a letter from the Claimant (the one I sent 29/11)

1. List on notice to all parties for a Case Management Conference on 28th January.

Any idea what that will likely entail?

Not a clue!

Sounds like the Judge is putting pressure on the airline. I hope someone that understands the Court system more than me can tell you, I'd just be guessing I'm afraid

NSS

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Not a clue!

Sounds like the Judge is putting pressure on the airline. I hope someone that understands the Court system more than me can tell you, I'd just be guessing I'm afraid

I did a bit of digging and found an article that contains the following (seems I'm not allowed to post a link);

The ordinary business at a case management conference includes:

1) Ensuring previous directions made by the court have been complied with;
2) Review the steps taken by the parties in preparing the case for the final hearing;
3) Decide matters that should be addressed prior to the hearing, having regard for the overriding objective;
4) Make a record of agreements to progress the litigation;
5) fix further directions which the parties to the litigation are to comply with up to the trial.

Given Thomson's failure to comply with the DJ's previous order I'm assuming that point 1 above may feature in the discussion ;-)

benicetome

Letter received from Stoke On Trent County Court today.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Claimant's request for a stay is refused.

2. By 4.00pm on 19 January 2015 the Claimant shall send to the court and to the Defendant a letter detailing exactly why the defence is alleged to be different to the defence in Huzar v Jet2.com limited so that the court can consider why it should not be struck out and judgement given for the Claimant.

---

The above county court letter was received by post today in regards to my requesting by email approximately 2 weeks ago that the County Court (Stoke On Trent) dealing with my case refuses "Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd" latest request for yet another stay (third time) pending the outcome of the Van der Lans v KLM case.

First off, point number 1. Just don't get how it is worded,"The Claimant's request for a stay is refused".

As the claimant, I didn't request a stay, the defendant Thomas Cook requested the stay. It doesn't make sense to me.

If it had stated "The Claimant's request for a lift on the requested stay is refused", it would have made much more sense to me.

And point number 2 inclusion of, "so that the court can consider why it should not be struck out and judgement given for the Claimant."

Does this mean that if I don't provide a good enough reason or reasons why the case should not be stayed to the court and defendant by the date given, my case will be thrown out of court altogether?

Also, I cannot understand why the court should make such a request on me at this time as I had already stated clearly in my email I sent to them 2 weeks ago why I had decided to make a stand against TC's request for yet another stay on my case.

Could this be due to the fact that I did not send a copy of the same email to T C (defendant's) informing them of my intentions to oppose their latest request?

Without giving out all the details here, I basically asked the court to consider the facts that I had provided to them and to proceed with my case hearing as scheduled on 23 March 2015, based on those facts given.

My head is spinning again. More time, more hassle, more paperwork, more postage costs just to inform T C of my intentions and to reiterate to the Court what I thought were valid enough reasons why my case should be heard on the scheduled date.

The saga continues. What a fiasco!!

razorsedge

benicetome wrote: »

Letter received from Stoke On Trent County Court today.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Defendant's request for a stay is refused.

2. By 4.00pm on 19 January 2015 the Defendant shall send to the court and to the Claimant a letter detailing exactly why the defence is alleged to be different to the defence in Huzar v Jet2.com limited so that the court can consider why it should not be struck out and judgement given for the Claimant.

---

The above county court letter was received by post today in regards to my requesting by email approximately 2 weeks ago that the County Court (Stoke On Trent) dealing with my case refuses "Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd" latest request for yet another stay (third time) pending the outcome of the Van der Lans v KLM case.

First off, point number 1. Just don't get how it is worded,"The Claimant's request for a stay is refused".

As the claimant, I didn't request a stay, the defendant Thomas Cook requested the stay. It doesn't make sense to me.

If it had stated "The Claimant's request for a lift on the requested stay is refused", it would have made much more sense to me.

And point number 2 inclusion of, "so that the court can consider why it should not be struck out and judgement given for the Claimant."

Does this mean that if I don't provide a good enough reason or reasons why the case should not be stayed to the court and defendant by the date given, my case will be thrown out of court altogether?

Also, I cannot understand why the court should make such a request on me at this time as I had already stated clearly in my email I sent to them 2 weeks ago why I had decided to make a stand against TC's request for yet another stay on my case.

Could this be due to the fact that I did not send a copy of the same email to T C (defendant's) informing them of my intentions to oppose their latest request?

Without giving out all the details here, I basically asked the court to consider the facts that I had provided to them and to proceed with my case hearing as scheduled on 23 March 2015, based on those facts given.

My head is spinning again. More time, more hassle, more paperwork, more postage costs just to inform T C of my intentions and to reiterate to the Court what I thought were valid enough reasons why my case should be heard on the scheduled date.

The saga continues. What a fiasco!!

I susupect that the Thomson Airways CAP* department have trained your Court and the Court have comitted a few CAPE's here.

If you substitute the underlined italised words 'Claimant' & 'Defendant' as I have in your quote above then it makes much more sense. Might be worth phoning/writing to the Court to have them check and clarify the wording in your order as it makes no sense at all as written, and to re-issue it.

*
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64086737#Comment_64086737