I'm taking Ryanair through the small claims court

LaHostessAvecLaMostess

Markh5096 said:

eskbanker said:

A painful experience I'm sure, and, like others who didn't rate your chances, it gives me no satisfaction to see this outcome, but are you able to share any detail of how the 'contract frustration' argument was dealt with?  It seemed all along that there wasn't much room for debate about not having any refund rights granted by the contract itself but I understood that you were instead approaching this from the wider perspective of that contract being frustrated....

This is how the Frustration angle was dealt with, by the Defence barrister....

1.                     First, the doctrine of frustration “is concerned with unforeseen, supervening events, not events which have been anticipated and provided for in the contract itself” (Chitty on Contracts (34th ed.) §26-059). The GTCC make express provision for a situation in which the Claimant was unable to use his tickets because Spain would not admit him. That provision is at Art. 13.3,[1] which provides:

We will not refund costs relating to any flight you cannot use as a result of you being refused entry.

 

That is precisely what happened in this case. The Claimant was refused entry to Spain, and for that reason, could not take his flight. The GTCC cannot have been frustrated by an outcome for which they make explicit provision.

2.                     Second, the Claimant retained the right to change flights under the GTCC.[2] Accordingly, it cannot be said that the conditions of performance had changed so as to obliterate (rather than reduce) the value of the Claimant’s rights in the circumstances. It is not relevant that the Claimant did not consider the exercise of those rights to be convenient:[3] The Sea Angel [2007] EWCA Civ 547, [2007] 1 C.L.C. 876 §111.      

3.                     Third, this entire contractual matrix has to be seen in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated ongoing risk of disruption. The Claimant booked tickets on a low-cost airline for winter flights during a pandemic respiratory virus. The risk of something like this happening was (at the very least) foreseeable: indeed, it was significant. 

4.                     The GTCC were accordingly not frustrated. In any event, if the GTCC were frustrated, that would discharge any future obligations, but would not result in an obligation to repay any money unless the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 applied, or there was a total failure of consideration.

4.1.               The Act, however, applies only to contracts governed by English law,[4] which the GTCC are not.[5] The Claimant cannot therefore rely on it to ask the Court to order the money be repaid.

4.2.               There has been no total failure of consideration. The Claimant retained a right to change flights, and accordingly was still owed obligations under the contract.[6]

---

[1] GTCC Art. 13.3 [12/119].

[2] GTCC Art 3.1.5 [12/101].

[3] Mr Hope’s Witness Statement ¶8 [9/75].

[4] S. 1(1) begins “Where a contract governed by English law has become impossible of performance or been otherwise frustrated…”

[5] GTCC Art. 2.3.1 [12/101].

[6] GTCC Art 3.1.5 [12/101].

I appreciate this insight and to be fair, it shows that you were onto a loser from the start.

Although you cannot claim legal expenses in the small claims track it clearly shows what paying for it can do if you have deep enough pockets.

I think you were thoroughly "pwned" by the defence and there is little point trying to ask for an appeal opportunity

But as others have said I definitely appreciate you coming back to say that you lost and even more so providing us with the defendants' legal arguments.

michael1234

The OP was apparently representing himself against a barrister from Ryanair.

To me this shows a judge is most likely to agree with his legal colleagues than the layman defending himself who would not be in any serious position to counter any of the legal arguments made. It has no bearing on what the outcome might have been had the claimant been better represented so is certainly a very long way from setting a precedent.

CKhalvashi

michael1234 said:

The OP was apparently representing himself against a barrister from Ryanair.

To me this shows a judge is most likely to agree with his legal colleagues than the layman defending himself who would not be in any serious position to counter any of the legal arguments made. It has no bearing on what the outcome might have been had the claimant been better represented so is certainly a very long way from setting a precedent.

I disagree, with additional point being that to suggest an appeal is worthy is reckless and will open the OP to significant legal costs without any reasonable chance of success.

From a personal point of view (which I won't normally give but now the matter has gone through court I feel able to do so), I wished that Ryanair not refunding would be deemed unfair, however the points given reflect in full the legislation in this case, at least under my understanding of the legislation.

I have given the 2 significant dates that may have made a difference on the previous page again with a practical, from experience example. Which date the courts may wish to use would be their decision, as would whether ignoring the dates completely.

I have to deem booking a LCC flight in the middle of a pandemic to mean at best willing to forfeit the funds under a strict reading of the legislation and contract terms, even if I do not necessarily deem it to be moral on a personal level.

Thrugelmir

michael1234 said:

The OP was apparently representing himself against a barrister from Ryanair.

To me this shows a judge is most likely to agree with his legal colleagues than the layman defending himself who would not be in any serious position to counter any of the legal arguments made. It has no bearing on what the outcome might have been had the claimant been better represented so is certainly a very long way from setting a precedent.

Not simply a question of representation in court. The OP would need to seek legal counsel that would prepare a case to take to court. Already taking into account the defence's position. Not a case for the small claims court either. 

LaHostessAvecLaMostess

michael1234 said:

The OP was apparently representing himself against a barrister from Ryanair.

To me this shows a judge is most likely to agree with his legal colleagues than the layman defending himself who would not be in any serious position to counter any of the legal arguments made. It has no bearing on what the outcome might have been had the claimant been better represented so is certainly a very long way from setting a precedent.

The small claims track doesn't set precedent anyway so that's irrelevant.

michael1234

CKhalvashi said:

michael1234 said:

The OP was apparently representing himself against a barrister from Ryanair.

To me this shows a judge is most likely to agree with his legal colleagues than the layman defending himself who would not be in any serious position to counter any of the legal arguments made. It has no bearing on what the outcome might have been had the claimant been better represented so is certainly a very long way from setting a precedent.

I disagree, with additional point being that to suggest an appeal is worthy is reckless and will open the OP to significant legal costs without any reasonable chance of success.

I don't think I suggested it was worthy. I think I said it probably wouldn't be practical (largely due to the reason you suggest). In fact, I'd agree that pursing without legal backup and significant resources would certainly be reckless.

Where we largely disagree is that without legal training I don't think it is helpful to get into the legal detail of the case.

Perhaps you could have another think about my comments being reckless? And no, I haven't hit the red button quite yet 8-)

CKhalvashi

michael1234 said:

Yes credit to him and for taking it all the way.

And credit to the other posters for the lack of "told you so" type posts.

I take it an appeal is not practicable (or even possible) ?

This was what you said Michael, before the full judgement was placed in front of us.

Having had the opportunity following your post to re-read the FR arguments, the only (very legally contentious) argument I could possibly think of would be whether the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 would have applied, being in effect a domestic contract as the UK was de facto an EU member at the time, therefore potentially making this a 'domestic' contract even if it were under Irish law through EU harmonisation, on the basis that one party is a UK consumer.

I was not aware that the act only applied to domestic contracts, nor do I believe was anyone else here (or possibly the British government via the CMA at that time). I don't believe that even if this is an error on behalf of the courts that it will materially change anything in the judgement based on the other arguments presented, and it is so far outside of legal certainty that it's realistically a non-starter unless someone with very deep pockets wishes to prove a point.

I do believe it's helpful to discuss aspects of the application of legislation on the forums, even as non-lawyers. A number of posters here have a proven track record over many years of fact checking each other and discussing the application of legislation, and I personally (I'm sure others too) enjoy a well reasoned argument on which way such cases should go.

It's also worth noting on many cases that my personal view and the view of the legislation may differ, however I saw no benefit to giving a personal opinion based on anything other than legislation on the facts presented to us on this post. I therefore apologise if anything may have come across as heavy handed, but I believe in honesty and telling it as it is.

Jackl31

Hi,

Myself and 3 others (living in UK) were due to travel from Mykonos to Budapest on FR1911 with Ryanair on 17/09/2022

The flight ended up becoming an overnight delay with no official reason provided. During the day, they tried to board us twice. The first time it seemed like there was no plane and the second time there was a plane, however ground staff couldn't seem to secure a route (there were rumours that they were going to take us to Athens instead).

I have since submitted compensation claims and after months of chasing, Ryanair recently informed me that they would not be paying out compensation as the delay was due to 'adverse weather conditions'. There were no signs of adverse weather on the day and other flights were leaving without an issue. Also, airport staff were telling us we could claim compensation i.e. didn't suggest we would have issues claiming.

I am now wondering, should I follow the suggested process to take Ryanair to the European small claims court? Or is there a NWNF firm that you recommend I use?

Any thoughts appreciated as I'm not quite sure what to do next

Thanks

Jack

silvercar

Jackl31 said:

Hi,

Myself and 3 others (living in UK) were due to travel from Mykonos to Budapest on FR1911 with Ryanair on 17/09/2022

The flight ended up becoming an overnight delay with no official reason provided. During the day, they tried to board us twice. The first time it seemed like there was no plane and the second time there was a plane, however ground staff couldn't seem to secure a route (there were rumours that they were going to take us to Athens instead).

I have since submitted compensation claims and after months of chasing, Ryanair recently informed me that they would not be paying out compensation as the delay was due to 'adverse weather conditions'. There were no signs of adverse weather on the day and other flights were leaving without an issue. Also, airport staff were telling us we could claim compensation i.e. didn't suggest we would have issues claiming.

I am now wondering, should I follow the suggested process to take Ryanair to the European small claims court? Or is there a NWNF firm that you recommend I use?

Any thoughts appreciated as I'm not quite sure what to do next

Thanks

Jack

I used Bott&Co against Ryanair. They were fine, no doubt others will say you can do it yourself and save some money.

fatboy12

I also lost my case against Ryanair because of flights I was unable to take in 2020 because of lockdown legislation. I booked flights in January 2020 to fly in September 2020. The  Welsh Government imposed lockdown legislation in September 2020 making it illegal for us to catch the flights. Ryanair refused a refund or a credit note because the flight had not been cancelled. After reading an article published on the MSE  website regarding a Mr. Blades winning his  case against Ryanair I decided to take Ryanair to the small claims court. Mr Blades was following government advice against non essential travel and decided not to fly, but Ryanair refused to refund him his ticket money. The judge found in favour of Mr. Blades. I produced the adjudication as evidence in my case but the judge found in favour of Ryanair. It a mystery to me how two small claim court judges can differ in their adjudication when provided with the same evidence . I understand  the decision in the Blades v Ryanair action is not case law but I am at a loss how two opposing adjudications can be arrived at by two judges in the small claims court.