Court success thread

Well I have had my half day in Court this morning.

My flight was TOM167 from Dominican Republic to Manchester on 6th December 2011. We were delayed 7 1/2 hours as a result of a technical defect being found prior to our aircraft departing Manchester on its outbound trip to the Dominican. The defect quoted by Thomson was a fault with the electronic engine control, and claimed that this part had only been replaced 2 weeks ago. They claimed the part normally has a life expectancy of 9500 hours and therefore a failure of the part just two weeks into its life, was extraordinary and could not have been forseen. They included a document from the CAA on how they view extraordinary circumstances and a paper by Mr Croon, defence council for Transavia Airlines.

We arrived at Newcastle County Court this morning, and met Thomson's barrister, a Mr Pacey of Trinity Chambers. Thomson had requested me to prove I was on the flight, and that I suffered a loss. Mr Pacey informed me that they would not be arguing these points, and was accepting I was on the flight and that there was no requirement for me to prove I suffered any loss. He told me that he was just going to concentrate on the elements of extraordinary circumstances, and that the part was only 2 weeks old when it failed. Thomsons had included two witness statements, one from the programme deliver manager, and one from the engineering manager. Mr Pacey confirmed that neither witness would be present for the hearing

Into court we went, and Mr Pacey opened by telling the district judge that he agreed with all elements of my statement and that I was on the flight, and asked the judge if we could just deal directly with the issues of extraordinary circumstances. The judge asked me whether I agreed with the elements of Thomson's witness statements. This is where it started getting interesting. Thomson's statements were riddled with errors. They included 2 exhibits, one was an operational report for the day in question, one of was a printout from the fault system showing the sequence of events for the fault being discovered. One showed that the fault had been found on the flight to operate TOM112 MAN to MBJ. The other showed the fault was discovered on TOM188 MAN to MLE. The statement of the programme delivery manager said the fault was discovered on TOM166, the outbond flight to Dominican. I pointed out to the court that all the evidence was contradictory, and could not show with any certainty that the fault was found on the outbound flight to the Domincan. She agreed, and gave Mr Pacey 15 minutes to phone Thomson's to clarify the issues.

He came back and tried to explain the errors, some of which the judge did seem to understand. So we pressed ahead with the case. I claimed that the fault was not extraordinary due to all the reasons included in Wallentin, and that even if extraordinary, Thomson had not provided any evidence to the Court of what they had done to try and avoid the circumstances leading to the long delay of the flight. Mr Pacey's case centred around the fact that part was so new, it could only be a hidden manufacturing defect that caused the defect, and used the caviot in the Regulation to show that it should be extraordinary.

Unfortunately for Thomson, in the paperwork from the CAA which they had included in their bundle, their was graph which was meant to illustrate the likelihood of a part failing against the age of that part. That graph showed that it is just as likely that a part would fail in the early stages of use, as it would at the end of its natural life.

This clinched it for me. The judged summed up that she had concerns over the quality of the evidence offered by Thomson, and the fact that the witnesses had not turned up and could not be cross examined, meant she could rely even less on it. She stated that Thomson had failed to prove extraordinary circumstances, as in the graph from the CAA that they included in their own bundle, shows that Thomson's should be aware of the risk of early failure of a part. She would not rule on whether Thomson had done all they could do avoid the delay, because she stated that Thomson had not proved extraordinary circumstances, and thus awared €600 for both myself and my wife, together with court costs and interest.

On the way out of Court, Mr Pacey shook my hand and told me that he was almost embarrassed at the evidence provided by Thomson, that he was supposed to fight a case on

Makavo1
Congratulations, we'll done.

'Thomson's statements were riddled with errors.'
Just a quick question please?
Did you go into court knowing this or was it quick thinking on your behalf?

Another success thanks to the support and advice from the Forum!
Have just received my cheque from Virgin Atlantic for flight VS0015 Gatwick to Orlando on October 2nd 2008.
Originally quoted as unforseen technical problems prior to departure on a previous flight they acknowledged service of claim and said they intended to defend. Less than 2 weeks later though and I have a cheque in my hands that will be banked asap.
Curiously enough, the cheque from Virgin is dated a day before my letter from the courts saying an acknowledgement of service for the claim had been filed!

Well you got what you'd have got if you went with a NWNF - and you presumably haven't had to do too much work (no bundle etc) but I bet you could have had the full amount if you'd pushed. Still, you're happy: so well done!

I'm not an accountant but it seems to me that, from the success's v the failures, you have a 96% chance of success if you go to court