Two year time-bar

howticklediam

Vauban wrote: »

Yes. But this doesn't help you, unfortunately. The Dawson case was about whether the time limit to bring an action was determined by the Montreal Convention [2 years] or National Statutes of Limitation. The Court of Appeal say the latter, which the airlines now begrudgingly accept.

The Statute of Limitation is generally six years in England (five in Scotland) but there is also provision to shorten this period under the statute if it is agreed in contract between the two parties. It is this provision that is currently being argued through the courts, but Article XIV of the Regulation isn't really relevant. At least that is how I understand it.

I have a suspicion, but I also admit I haven't researched it thoroughly yet, it's on my list, that the two-year clause is lifted verbatim, or close to, from the Montreal Convention. So there maybe some mileage there, or maybe not.

Vauban

howticklediam wrote: »

I have a suspicion, but I also admit I haven't researched it thoroughly yet, it's on my list, that the two-year clause is lifted verbatim, or close to, from the Montreal Convention. So there maybe some mileage there, or maybe not.

I think you're right that it is - but I'm not sure that much helps. The Montreal point has been put to bed, and the airlines' justification for their new two year argument lies exclusively in contract law (in so far as I understand it).

Of the four arguments in your other post, the first is arguably problematic (for the reasons I set out), the second a bit spurious (I recall the Court of Appeal during Dawson being unimpressed by efforts to draw a distinction between compensation and damages. Which leaves the other two: which are basically arguments about contract law.

This is saloon bar legal talk - and I for one have no legal qualifications, knowledge or talent. But I still reckon the fourth argument - that it is an unfair term - is the only one that is likely to hold serious water. We'll found out soon enough, I guess!

howticklediam

Vauban wrote: »

Yes. But this doesn't help you, unfortunately. The Dawson case was about whether the time limit to bring an action was determined by the Montreal Convention [2 years] or National Statutes of Limitation. The Court of Appeal say the latter, which the airlines now begrudgingly accept.

The Statute of Limitation is generally six years in England (five in Scotland) but there is also provision to shorten this period under the statute if it is agreed in contract between the two parties. It is this provision that is currently being argued through the courts, but Article XIV of the Regulation isn't really relevant. At least that is how I understand it.

Isn't the obligation in Article 15, the obligation of the airline to honour the passengers rights and pay compensation in accordance with the local statute, i.e. 6 years, which was laid down by Dawson?

Or is that a rather convoluted argument?

Vauban

howticklediam wrote: »

Isn't the obligation in Article 15, the obligation of the airline to honour the passengers rights and pay compensation in accordance with the local statute, i.e. 6 years, which was laid down by Dawson?

Or is that a rather convoluted argument?

It's not convoluted; but the airline would argue that there is no Article 15 consideration, as they accept the Regulation is subject to national statute limitations (as I think the More Judgement also concluded). But the airlines' argument is that this period is six years or whatever is agreed between the parties.

This all disappears up its own bottom eventually. But it's definitely possible to argue that the contractual two year limit does not detract from the provisions of the Regulation.

ChorizoMan

Apologies if I've missed this being discussed elsewhere, but is the two year time bar / contract argument being used by lots of airlines? Or is it just Jet2 at the moment?

Just wondering if I can expect this argument when my case with TC proceeds.

NoviceAngel

Jet2 and Ryanair I believe the others like Wizzair and Thomas Cook seem to have accepted the Barnes/Allen case at Liverpool.

PS I know the Allen case, wasn't about the two year rule, but if you read the judgement, you can get some hints on how DJ Jenkinson thinks

howticklediam

ChorizoMan wrote: »

Apologies if I've missed this being discussed elsewhere, but is the two year time bar / contract argument being used by lots of airlines? Or is it just Jet2 at the moment?

Just wondering if I can expect this argument when my case with TC proceeds.

Check your terms and conditions from the booking, if it has a clause saying there is a two year limit to bring an [legal] action, then yes.

I don't know whether TC are using this argument or not, but they can only use it if it's in the small print. And even then the next few weeks will give you an idea of the chances of having it overturned.

stevemej

According to the latest letter from jet2 They WON their case (regarding the time-barring aspect) At Liverpool:
"in addition,we have received an Order from Liverpool County Court, where the majority of 'flight delay' claims are allocated, on a matter against Jet2.com in which the court dismissed the matter of it own volition. The court confirmed that by entering into a contract with us the passenger agreed, under the relevant clause of Terms and Conditions, that the limitation for claims would be reduced to two years

Tyzap

stevemej wrote: »

According to the latest letter from jet2 They WON their case (regarding the time-barring aspect) At Liverpool:
"in addition,we have received an Order from Liverpool County Court, where the majority of 'flight delay' claims are allocated, on a matter against Jet2.com in which the court dismissed the matter of it own volition. The court confirmed that by entering into a contract with us the passenger agreed, under the relevant clause of Terms and Conditions, that the limitation for claims would be reduced to two years

And here is one that Ryanair lost.

http://www.flightdelays.co.uk/blog/2015/1269/court-rejects-ryanair-2-year-defence

howticklediam

stevemej wrote: »

According to the latest letter from jet2 They WON their case (regarding the time-barring aspect) At Liverpool:
"in addition,we have received an Order from Liverpool County Court, where the majority of 'flight delay' claims are allocated, on a matter against Jet2.com in which the court dismissed the matter of it own volition. The court confirmed that by entering into a contract with us the passenger agreed, under the relevant clause of Terms and Conditions, that the limitation for claims would be reduced to two years

Yep, got that one too. It means nothing, it sounds to me like it was a ruling on paper and didn't get to court. You have your own case and arguments, and can cite other cases that went the other way. There's a list above. And will hopefully be some more next week.