The Liverpool Allen case result:

JPears

or perhaps deux oiseaux have found another "angle" to focus on?

Tyzap

denised wrote: »

jet2 had 21days to appeal allen case in Liverpool anyone heard if they have, time up tomorrow.:)

Time to appeal expires on Thursday but nothing yet.

DrA_Harrogate

JPears wrote: »

or perhaps deux oiseaux have found another "angle" to focus on?

I think the 'angle de jour' is 'manufacturing defect' which 2birds have quoted in their letter to my Judge. In my reply I mentioned that (a) they never mentioned this in the Hearing and (b) if they had seriously considered it likely they would have been bound to report it to Boeing, which they didn't.


I await with interest..


AS

stevemej

DrA_Harrogate wrote: »

I think the 'angle de jour' is 'manufacturing defect' which 2birds have quoted in their letter to my Judge. In my reply I mentioned that (a) they never mentioned this in the Hearing and (b) if they had seriously considered it likely they would have been bound to report it to Boeing, which they didn't.


I await with interest..


AS

What stage are you at? Have you already had your hearing?? if so i thought the judge gave a result straight away.

stevemej

I'd be very interested to find out what they come up with at court as they are using this 'angle de jour' with me too. They are fast running out of 'outs' to use a poker term.

howticklediam

The other angle de jour is the time-bar, I wonder how many of those there are, because they seem keen to test it.

howticklediam

Has LegalMagpie been gagged? I've not heard from him for a while, unless I'm not looking at the "thread du jour".

stevemej

howticklediam wrote: »

The other angle de jour is the time-bar, I wonder how many of those there are, because they seem keen to test it.

Well with there defence against us they say
1. we think it should be stayed because of van der lans.
2. if its not stayed then we think it should be time barred.
3. if its not time barred we will sue you for breach of contract
if we dont sue you for breach of contract we think its an extraordinary circumstance caused by a manufacturing fault.

it smacks of desperation to have 3 or four reasons. if ANY of their arguments were valid then they wouldnt need three or four.

I think they make themselves look ridiculous, and not in the same way tim booth spoke about in the song 'sit down'.

howticklediam

stevemej wrote: »

Well with there defence against us they say
1. we think it should be stayed because of van der lans.
2. if its not stayed then we think it should be time barred.
3. if its not time barred we will sue you for breach of contract
if we dont sue you for breach of contract we think its an extraordinary circumstance caused by a manufacturing fault.

it smacks of desperation to have 3 or four reasons. if ANY of their arguments were valid then they wouldnt need three or four.

I think they make themselves look ridiculous, and not in the same way tim booth spoke about in the song 'sit down'.

Snap. Didn't they ask you to prove you were on the flight?

stevemej

howticklediam wrote: »

Snap. Didn't they ask you to prove you were on the flight?

yes - how ridiculous. Should we contact the airport to see if we can get access to their CCTV recordings showing us in the boarding queue. I'm sure that if we had not checked in then firstly the luggage would not have been accepted and secondly Jet2s records would have highlighted the fact. I'm sure this sort of comment only displays to the judge just how peevish the defendants are. If 2 birds have come up with this then I think they are offering bad advice to their clients. How will a judge interpret such pettiness in a case of LiP vs multimillion dollar set of lawyers for a multimillion £ international company?