Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • Allen - V-Jet2

    Cargado por

    harry1cole
    327 vistas20 páginas
    Case as heard in Liverpool Court on 25/02/15

    Título original

    Allen -v-Jet2

    Derechos de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponibles

    PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Case as heard in Liverpool Court on 25/02/15

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    327 vistas20 páginas

    Allen - V-Jet2

    Cargado por

    harry1cole
    Case as heard in Liverpool Court on 25/02/15

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 20
    INTHE COUNTY COURT AT LIVERPOOL Liver Es Vernon Street Liverpool 122BX Date: 257027201 Before DISTRICT JUDGE JENKINSON Case Nor ATA 039 Between:= KIMBERLEY ALLEN Claimant and JET2.COM LIMITED Defendant ‘Mr Simon Murray (instructed by Bot & Co) forthe Claimant ‘Mr Charles Béar QC and Mr Tom Bird (instucted by Bird and Bird) forthe Defendant Case No: 3¥068970 Between:- ROBERT LAZARE Caimant ao JEP.COM LIMITED Defendant Mr Robert Lazare in person “Mr Tom Bird (instructed by Bird and Bird) forthe Dete 1 YM3S8 Between: ALEXANDER DOMBOVICH Caimant and WIZ. AIK HUNGARY LIMITED Defendant “Me Simon Murray instructed by Bott & Co) for the Claimant "Mr Charles Béar QC and Mr Tom Bird (instructed by Bird and Bird) forthe Defendant ‘Case Nor ACOBLS34, Between:- KELLY DARNDS Ghaimant and RYANAIR LIMITED Defewdat ‘Mr Henry Vanderpurap (instrsctod by Hughes Walker) forthe Claimant ‘Mr Max Davidson (instructed by Ince & Co) forthe Defendant ig date: 2570272018 )GMENT. ‘Boskground 4. Pursuant to an EU regulation (Regulation (EC) No, 261/2004), (‘the Regulator 1 delay of more tan 3 hours, may be eniied to clsim compensation of between €250 and €600 each from the siline concemed. The carrier is, airline passengers whose flights are subject to cancellation or to however, by way of Antcle 5(3) of the Regulation, afforded a defence o such 1 claim if it car prove that the cancellation or delay was caused by “extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all ‘reasonable measures had been taken”. 22. Unsurprisingly, the interpretation of this particular provision has been the subject of contested ligation. I will refer, for case of reference, to the ‘opposing patics in such litigation a “the passengers” and “the ai the extent that I adopt similar terminology wien describing the partes in these pplication, no disrespect is intended. 1s". To 3, This litigation has culminated so far in England and Wales with the judgment ‘of the Court of Appeal in the case of Jet2.Com Limited v Ronald Hurar (2014) EWCA Civ 21 (“Huzar". That judgment is well own to all those involved in the litigation of these claims. In essence, the Court of Appeal found in favour ofthe passengers, and held thet technical problems are not generally considered tobe an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ so to afford the silines the benefit ofthat defence. 4, Before the judgment of the Court of Appeal, many hundreds of these cases were issued at Ge County Court at various locations. Many, if not the majority, were transferred 10 the County Court at Liverpool for case management by specified District Judges, of whom I am one. The reason for this was twofold. Fissly, to ensure @ unified approach in their case ‘management. Secondly, to Tailitate the collation of individual claims arising fiom the same light, in order that, i and when issues fll tobe determined ata hearing there cold bea single determination ofthe isues in respect ofeach flight, rather than the same issues being litigated in the County Court at various locations, which would be an inappropriate use of court resoures, and hich could also potentially lead to inconsistent findings being made ‘This court took the stance of staying claims in which the ailine was raising the defence of extraordinary circumstance inthe form of a technical problem, pending the decision of the Court of Appeal on this ssue. Immediately after ‘that judgment became available, the unsuccessfu) sitline submitted an pplication for permission to appeal tothe Supreme Cour. In the light of this, it was decided to extend the above stays pending either the decison of the Supreme Court as to whether to grant permission fer an appeal, or, if such permission was granted, the outcome of that appeal. At that tage it was fet, balancing the interests of both passengers and aisles that it would be in accordance with the overiding objective (see below) to do so. Whilst these cases are individually worth comparatively lite, it was felt appropriate to wait an imminent decision of the highest court in England & Wales, rather than possibly requieailines to met such cases with an appeal pending which right have reversed their obligation to do so. I is tobe noted, however, that there was known and fairly shor timescale in that gard. By way of update ‘on the Supreme Couns website dated 9 September 2014, it was advised that a

    También podría gustarte