Huzar appeal

A question about : Huzar appeal

Trigger 16 mentions in this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...postcount=3679

But I have received a letter from Thomson advising that as the respondent has appealed against the latest Huzar ruling they are asking the court to stay my hearing.

Any truth in that?
Or just confusion over the 2 year appeal? (Dawson)

Best answers:

• I am informed by good sources that an application to appeal has been made. If accepted by the higher court, this would potentially put all claims involving a technical fault once again on ice.
• It's a rather high stake gambit if they are
  I was expecting them to attempt to discredit the Huzar judgment by way of fresh appeals, they only need one Circuit Judge with a different interpretation of Wallentin and their objective is achieved, and it doesn't involve any risk of binding precedent being set in the process.
  Even if they have chosen to throw all their eggs in one basket Wallentin can not be ignored by the courts, I doubt that an appeal of Huzar would suddenly create the necessity for cases to be stayed, but I guess only time will tell.
• Quote Mark2Mark
  "Any truth in that?
  Or just confusion over the 2 year appeal? (Dawson)"
  No definitely the letter states that an appeal was lodged, on 5th November to the Court of Appeal, against the Huzar ruling. The appeal is based on "That HHJ Platts was wrong in law in respect of the test to be applied as set down in the Wallentin decision." And for good measure of copy of the Huzar ruling was attached to the letter.
• Disappointing but inevitable perhaps, given the effectiveness of the Huzar judgement in persuading even the most unsympathetic judge to find in favour of the claimant.
  Presumably though the Court of Appeal don't HAVE to grant the right of appeal. One might argue that Huzar is only, in essence, a reiteration of the Wallentin judgement - and the time to appeal that was about five years ago! But perhaps the Court will conclude that given the public interest (in all senses of the word) an appeal should be heard.
  It would obviously be deeply frustrating if all claims relating to technical problems (ie most of them) are once again put on ice. But if the airline fails at appeal then it will be hard to see how the NEB guidelines survive - or indeed how airlines resist paying out for anything other than extraordinary circumstances. There will be nowhere else for the airlines to hide.
• ....perhaps they should be reminded that some airlines wasted time over the Sturgeon Judgement?
  IMHO Jet2 are playing a ......... game and other airlines, BA, easyJet don't need to.
• Indeed. But by the extension of that argument, the airline ought to be refused leave to appeal, as the point of law they are seeking to contest is in effect the Wallentin conclusions. (And perhaps they will.)
  But I can quite see an airline arguing for a stay on the basis that the relationship between technical defects and extraordinary circumstances was now an issue before the court of appeal. I don't anticipate many judges will resist a request for a stay.
• I wonder if and how much pressure Jet2 are under from other airlines after losing the appeal.
  The insistance on fighting every case appears to have come back to bite them....
  Of course they may have only applied for the appeal, due to the time limits set, to keep their options open. There may actually be little intention of the appeal proceeding?
• Perhaps, but they have to show these things genuinely happened. According to a letter from the UK airline chiefs to the Transport Minister in 2009, about 80% of delays are technical in origin (and you'll note their admission that they are not extraordinary, following Wallentin). So appealing Huzar really would be a last desperate throw of the dice, with significant implications if they lose: https://www.barin.nl/docs/DeniedBoard...dict8Dec09.pdf
• I'd love to know how Thomson got to know about this so early as it was not in the public domain at that time as far as I am aware.
  Thanks for posting the link for me.
• Up to you. But it's in mine ...