Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

edited 13 October 2017 at 12:22PM in Flight Delay Compensation
3.7K replies 624.5K views
15253555758375

Replies

  • Dr_Watson wrote: »
    Nothing granted as of yet regarding the appeal- maybe it'll show up if any such appeal gets granted..

    I was under the impression that for an appeal to be granted in a small claims case, that there had to be either a procedure error or a mistake made in law.
  • edited 13 January 2014 at 12:58PM
    David_eDavid_e Forumite
    1.5K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    edited 13 January 2014 at 12:58PM
    clunky1965 wrote: »
    I was under the impression that for an appeal to be granted in a small claims case, that there had to be either a procedure error or a mistake made in law.

    Presumably Huzar was an appeal against a small claims track case decision?

    I assume grounds for an appeal would include a belief that the law was not applied correctly, as in Huzar.





  • Dr_WatsonDr_Watson Forumite
    451 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    clunky1965 wrote: »
    I was under the impression that for an appeal to be granted in a small claims case, that there had to be either a procedure error or a mistake made in law.

    Yeah pretty much so.
    Unless you are Ryanair...then an appeal application is just par for the course and -all part of the process a Litigant In Person needs to expect, as part of their journey in suing Ryanair for what they are legally entitled to as per the regulation (261/2004).
    Successfully sued Ryanair in 2013/14...and have been 'helping' litigants since then.

    Current known score:-
    Dr Watson 35 - 0 Ryanair / Ince and Co

    Go to post 622 on the Ryanair thread to read how to sue them safely.
  • MY flight to Dublin was delayed 3+ hours 27/12/2013 due to the gales,I had already made the decision not to fly the night before due to sickness..so I assumed I would lose the money.
    On receiving an e mail notifying me of delays and possible compensation I decided to fill the form in anyway..they paid the money back onto my card last week!
  • But would not Wallentin v Herman and the Sturgeon case show that the law was applied correctly in Hurzar? Is the Hurzar appeal in a round about way trying to overturn Sturgeon which the airlines have already lost on appeal in a grand chamber.
  • edited 15 January 2014 at 12:12AM
    VaubanVauban Forumite
    4.7K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 15 January 2014 at 12:12AM
    clunky1965 wrote: »
    But would not Wallentin v Herman and the Sturgeon case show that the law was applied correctly in Hurzar? Is the Hurzar appeal in a round about way trying to overturn Sturgeon which the airlines have already lost on appeal in a grand chamber.

    Not Sturgeon - but Wallentin.

    Wallentin says tech faults are usually not extraordinary (which is what Huzar also said). This was in 2008, and didn't therefore much bother the airlines, as long as the Regulation still dealt with cancellations and not delays (delays being much more frequent than outright cancellations). Once Sturgeon confirmed that a delay of three hours was compensatable, suddenly Wallentin looked quite dangerous (since about 80% of air delays are due to technical issues, apparently). That's why the airlines fought so hard to overturn Sturgeon through the Nelson/Tui case in 2012 (and failed).

    If you are an ally of the airlines, you would argue that Huzar went beyond Wallentin and over-interpreted it. By challenging Huzar, they restore the (irritating) ambiguities in Wallentin and thus restore the balance between airline and passenger.

    If you are critic of the airlines, you would say that having failed to challenge Sturgeon, they are now having another go at Wallentin (which they didn't appeal at the time, and cannot now) to force a specious and restrictive interpretation on it.

    I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle - but a bit closer to the second than the first. More practically perhaps, Huzar was such a persuasive (though not binding) judgement in the small claims courts that the airlines had little choice than to challenge it or else accept that most claims would need to be paid. But they have doubled down: if the Court of Appeal sides with HH Judge Platts, then Jet2.com have just given their industry a binding judgement that means technical failures are not extraordinary (even those that occur mid-flight).

    [EDIT: This is my version of the history - others may have a different interpretation of course. None of it changes the price of fish.]
  • Vauban wrote: »
    Not Sturgeon - but Wallentin.

    Wallentin says tech faults are usually not extraordinary (which is what Huzar also said). This was in 2008, and didn't therefore much bother the airlines, as long as the Regulation still dealt with cancellations and not delays (delays being much more frequent than outright cancellations). Once Sturgeon confirmed that a delay of three hours was compensatable, suddenly Wallentin looked quite dangerous (since about 80% of air delays are due to technical issues, apparently). That's why the airlines fought so hard to overturn Sturgeon through the Nelson/Tui case in 2012 (and failed).

    If you are an ally of the airlines, you would argue that Huzar went beyond Wallentin and over-interpreted it. By challenging Huzar, they restore the (irritating) ambiguities in Wallentin and thus restore the balance between airline and passenger.

    If you are critic of the airlines, you would say that having failed to challenge Sturgeon, they are now having another go at Wallentin (which they didn't appeal at the time, and cannot now) to force a specious and restrictive interpretation on it.

    I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle - but a bit closer to the second than the first. More practically perhaps, Huzar was such a persuasive (though not binding) judgement in the small claims courts that the airlines had little choice than to challenge it or else accept that most claims would need to be paid. But they have doubled down: if the Court of Appeal sides with HH Judge Platts, then Jet2.com have just given their industry a binding judgement that means technical failures are not extraordinary (even those that occur mid-flight).

    [EDIT: This is my version of the history - others may have a different interpretation of course. None of it changes the price of fish.]
    Thank you for a thorough explanation. Would it now make sense to withhold any ESP claims for flight delays until the result of Huzar is known? If the Jet2.com lose surely there would be no point an airline appealing. Whereas if they win it will close the door on all technical delay claims.
  • VaubanVauban Forumite
    4.7K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    clunky1965 wrote: »
    Thank you for a thorough explanation. Would it now make sense to withhold any ESP claims for flight delays until the result of Huzar is known? If the Jet2.com lose surely there would be no point an airline appealing. Whereas if they win it will close the door on all technical delay claims.

    On the issue of whether to put your claim on ice until Huzar is decided, that's up to you. The advantage is more legal certainty. The disadvantages are the significant delay (and who knows the airlines won't try appeal Huzar further if they lose? They are playing a long game); and the risk that you get timed out whilst waiting (you need to have legally started and then stayed your claim in order to "stop the clock"; this will be especially important if the High Court rules in the Dawson case that the time limit to claim is two, and not six, years).

    If Jet2 wins its Huzar appeal it is important to stress that it does not supersede Wallentin (which comes from a higher court). But it will undoubtedly influence how UK courts interpret Wallentin. So it will be important to see exactly what the Court rules: the detail could be significant. And in the medium term this will all be overtaken by the EU's revision of 261/04, which will aim to clarify the point about technical faults and extraordinary circumstances directly.
  • FletchasketchFletchasketch Forumite
    466 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    Vauban wrote: »
    On the issue of whether to put your claim on ice until Huzar is decided, that's up to you. The advantage is more legal certainty. The disadvantages are the significant delay (and who knows the airlines won't try appeal Huzar further if they lose? They are playing a long game); and the risk that you get timed out whilst waiting (you need to have legally started and then stayed your claim in order to "stop the clock"; this will be especially important if the High Court rules in the Dawson case that the time limit to claim is two, and not six, years).

    If Jet2 wins its Huzar appeal it is important to stress that it does not supersede Wallentin (which comes from a higher court). But it will undoubtedly influence how UK courts interpret Wallentin. So it will be important to see exactly what the Court rules: the detail could be significant. And in the medium term this will all be overtaken by the EU's revision of 261/04, which will aim to clarify the point about technical faults and extraordinary circumstances directly.

    Hi, do we know when the Dawson case is getting heard in the high court please? Thanks
    Mortgage overpayments 2017: 17K, 2018: 32K, 2019: 25.5K

    May'18 DEBT FREE!

    £10'000 PB's: £933 Nutmeg Pot: £44'500 Company Shares
    £2328.42 TCB.
  • CobyBensonCobyBenson Forumite
    188 Posts
    Sixth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Dawson is currently listed for 12th May 2014 (at the Court of Appeal, not the High Court).
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Bacon flavoured toothpaste

Can you help this Forumite track some down?

Join the Forum discussion

£10 Christmas bonus

For benefits recipients

MSE News