07 Nov 2016

A question about : Which law has precedent or use both?

Hi,

Malaysian Airlines claim they had a ‘technical’ defect with the braking system on the inbound flight which would have operated my in-laws (bottom) - although personally I think they had low bookings and tried to bump all passengers onto one flight. Is ‘Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11)’still relevant or do I have to use Wallentin-Hermann v Alitaliaas well/instead in my statement to the small claims court?

Don’t think I’m being lazy it’s just that things seem to have snow-balled since I wrote this up for my in-laws about 2 years ago, when they put the claim (below) on hold whilst airlines were trying to get out of paying on technical grounds.

Many thanks in advance!

“On 6/11/12 our 10.50am flight (MH003) from Heathrow arrived 1482mins late at Perth Intl Airport because Malaysian Airways (MA) cancelled it as the inbound flight MH002 (operating the MH003) experienced a technical defect with the braking system. Verified via www.flightstats.co.uk/home.do.

As per the precedent set by 'Tui and others v CA” compensation is payable for 3+ hour delays in accordance with the Sturgeon case. The cancellation of the MH002 consequentially caused the delay and therefore the legal principle confirmed in ‘Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) also applies. Each of the 2 passengers (as e-ticket confirms) on booking ref: L1GQX
shall be seeking Ј460 compensation (Ј920 total) under EC Regulation 261/2004 as it was MA’s decision to cancel the 14680km flight.

MA’s EU Customer Relations Dept have ignored these judgments (Royal Mail track and trace ref no:?) by just re-iterating the same negative response, leaving us with no alternative but to seek recompense via the court.”

Malaysian Airline Response:

GTS 1571-02/2013
Without Prejudice
Dear Mr ****,

I am refer to my email of 28 February.

Firstly, please accept our sincere apologise for any inconvenience caused to you due to the flight delay.

Unfortunately the inbound flight MH002/05 November 2012 Kuala Lumpur to London which would have operated the MH003/06 November 2012 London to Kuala Lumpur experienced a technical defect. Specifically, the aircraft suffered a fault with the braking system and in the interest of passenger safety the aircraft was swapped with another aircraft.

The reason for the fault is a manufacturing issue. The Aircraft was only 5 months old and this specific part had no history of having sustained a fault in the past. This being the case we are firmly of the opinion that the delay to the flight was due to an extraordinary circumstance that Malaysia Airlines, taking all reasonable measures, could not have avoided. Under our duty of care, passengers were provided with hotel accommodation, meals and transport.

I hope you appreciate that, in the circumstances, Malaysia Airlines is not obliged to pay compensation under EU Regulations 261/2004. Should you require confirmation of the delay for insurance purposes, please do let me know.

Once again, we sincerely regret any inconvenience you experienced.

Kind regards,
*******
Customer Relations
Malaysia Airlines
247-249 Cromwell Road
London SW5 9GA
Tel: +44 (0) 207 341 2000 (Option 5)
E:customer.relations@uk.malaysiaairlines.com
Web:www.malaysiaairlines.com

Best answers:

Category: 
Flight Delay Compensation
  • 395 reads
Please Login or Register to reply to this topic