Medis111 wrote: »
Thanks for your prompt reply.
I will not need to attend any hearings for this? Just want to know if all it is going to cost me is £80.
Thank you in advance.
braininjury wrote: »
I have received the following response from Ryanair and not sure how to take next step, please help...
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 05/11/2013
I refer to your recent correspondence regarding the delayed departure of your flight FR2643 on the 16/04/2013 from Riga to London Stansted.
As the flight was delayed for reasons outside of the control of the airline (extraordinary circumstances), no monetary compensation under Article 7 of EU261/2004 is due. See an extract from Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004:
An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation/delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
Furthermore, when making your booking on Ryanair.com it was necessary for you to read and accept our General Conditions of Carriage which outlines the time limit for making claims against Ryanair (see below):
15.2 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
Any right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years of the date of arrival at destination, or the date on which the aircraft was scheduled to arrive, or the date on which the carriage stopped. The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court where the case is heard.
Given the above we are not in a position to issue you compensation as per your request.
I hope the above clarifies the situation
Possibility of shortening limitation periods under English law
The general view taken is that parties may agree to reduce the limitation periods for breach of contract and negligence claims from those stipulated in the Limitation Act. Such an approach is very common in construction contracts. Shorter limitation periods will be subject to a reasonableness test under the legal provisions preventing unfair contract terms, however when the parties agreeing to the shorter limitation period are sophisticated commercial entities of equal bargaining strength then the courts are less likely to hold that the shorter limitation period is unreasonable.
In contrast with the English position, some legal systems – such as those in France or the UAE – do not allow contractors to shorten the limitation period in relation to claims for defects that affect the stability of the building or plant. In these systems decennial liability may make the contractor liable for a period of ten years for such defects regardless of any contractual terms.
Vauban wrote: »
I understand that contracting parties can agree, as part of their contract, to a shorter period of limitation. Ryanair has this in their T&Cs. I read the following:
Dr_Watson wrote: »
Your second day with the smoky barrister due soon..?
Fair point given, question being did braininjury agree to any such shorter period of limitation?
Vauban wrote: »
I suspect he ticked the box, yes ... Of course, JP is right that he could argue either that he's not pursuing damages (and I think it was the More judgement that clarified this in the context of Montreal - it's statutory compensation, not damages) or that the T&Cs are unfair. I'm not sure whether these arguments would wash or not.
I myself waltz with Monarch again a week tomorrow ...
Eg, 50% off Papa John’s
Here’s what you need to know
Let us know your thoughts!