The Liverpool Allen case result:

Dr_Watson

NoviceAngel wrote: »

The Judgement is here:- http://www.scribd.com/doc/257008909/Allen-v-Jet2

The Order from the Judge, should state how you can appeal his/her decision.. If it doesn't telephone the Court, and ask how and which form to fill in to appeal the decision. It may be that you have to apply for a set-aside, but you will need guidance from the Courts on procedure.

If your case is stayed by Ryanair and you are using ESCP then use this template to send to your court to have the stay set aside (lifted):-

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67815301&postcount=1201


Of course, if your case is stayed by Jet2 or any of the other airlines and you are using MCOL or the paper based version of this claims route, simply edit to represent this and send off to your court handling your claim.
As I'm sure you are all well aware, the wheels of justice turn slowly and especially the administration around it, you will need to give your court a shove in the right direction.
Good luck and keep going.

NoviceAngel

Dr_Watson wrote: »

If your case is stayed by Ryanair and you are using ESCP then use this template to send to your court to have the stay set aside (lifted):-

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67815301&postcount=1201


Of course, if your case is stayed by Jet2 or any of the other airlines and you are using MCOL or the paper based version of this claims route, simply edit to represent this and send off to your court handling your claim.
As I'm sure you are all well aware, the wheels of justice turn slowly and especially the administration around it, you will need to give your court a shove in the right direction.
Good luck and keep going.

I think this is a little different though Dr Watson, because these cases have been 'stayed' pending the CJEU Van der Lans case specifically, and not 'Huzar'.

I agree though, excellent template to use.....

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Dr_Watson

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I think this is a little different though Dr Watson, because these cases have been 'stayed' pending the CJEU Van der Lans case specifically, and not 'Huzar'.

I agree though, excellent template to use.....

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Novice,
I thought they were part of the batch of cases that were all on 'hold' pending the application to have them stayed depending on the determination of the Allen/ combined cases which was directly attributed to KLM V VDL?

The template provided is designed to lift these stays post the Allen/ combined cases ruling.

NoviceAngel

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Novice,
I thought they were part of the batch of cases that were all on 'hold' pending the application to have them stayed depending on the determination of the Allen/ combined cases which was directly attributed to KLM V VDL?

The template provided is designed to lift these stays post the Allen/ combined cases ruling.

It would appear that Liverpool have stayed cases pending the reference to Van der Lans and that they will remain so, until conclusion of the Dutch case.

There's quite a few of us PMing and emailing details around, something is not right!

thomascrook123

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Novice,
I thought they were part of the batch of cases that were all on 'hold' pending the application to have them stayed depending on the determination of the Allen/ combined cases which was directly attributed to KLM V VDL?

The template provided is designed to lift these stays post the Allen/ combined cases ruling.

Mine is similar to what you say above, it seems my claim is part of a different batch of cases that are now on hold pending an application to have them stayed depending on the determination of a different combined set of cases which are directly attributed to KLM V VDL, so yes the same, just Thomas Cook batch of cases and new batch of stays...

JPears

So a week after Judge Jenkinson at Liverpool decreed that Van der Lans was not relevant to any further stays on cases, we have further stays on cases because of Van der Lans?

NoviceAngel

Indeed, looks like it JP, I've emailed our friends, to get a professional take on the news.............

JPears

Looks like the SCC legal system is as whacko as the airlines!

thomascrook123

JPears wrote: »

So a week after Judge Jenkinson at Liverpool decreed that Van der Lans was not relevant to any further stays on cases, we have further stays on cases because of Van der Lans?

That is exactly the position I find myself in. I was astounded when I received the letter yesterday. The only things I can think are: -

- The court letter was dated 3rd March. It was from Liverpool, so maybe the judge that made the decision hadn't heard the result of the Allen Case and doesn't watch or listen to the news...

- Thomas Cook had their Appeal to ask the stays for a group of cases agreed prior to the Allen decision so now my case is stayed until that group of cases is heard because the court won't backtrack on agreeing to Thomas Cooks appeal?

Vauban

thomascrook123 wrote: »

That is exactly the position I find myself in. I was astounded when I received the letter yesterday. The only things I can think are: -

- The court letter was dated 3rd March. It was from Liverpool, so maybe the judge that made the decision hadn't heard the result of the Allen Case and doesn't watch or listen to the news...

- Thomas Cook had their Appeal to ask the stays for a group of cases agreed prior to the Allen decision so now my case is stayed until that group of cases is heard because the court won't backtrack on agreeing to Thomas Cooks appeal?

It's really odd. Does the "Order" from the Court say something along the lines of this order is made without a hearing and either side may appeal blah blah?