Jump to content

FordAnglia

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

1 Follower

About FordAnglia

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Isnt this thread a continuation of the story? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/holiday-companies/135136-scots-law-ryanair-compensation.html
  2. That is not the reason why a prosecution has not been made. That reason remains a mystery. The breach of duty ( including a breach for failure to offer care) derives from a breach of Art 5 or Article 6-(that both refer to Art 9). That is why reference to Art 9 is redundant. Try "reading" it like a lawyer would read it.
  3. Was the content of my previous post covered before? You havent mentioned the concurrent and dedicated item of UK enforcement legislation-why not? The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005 In 5 years there has not been a single prosecution to my knowledge by the CAA using that legislation. Would the OFT in any event defer to that legislation and the CAA as responsible "state enforcer"? An individual passenger may perhaps be allowed to pursue a private (criminal) prosecution in a Magistrate's court-but may require the leave of
  4. Interesting- it appears that you take a contrary view to the District Judge in the case last year of Rigby v Iberia-who came to the view that in a UK context at least- that the the public enforcement instrument as provided by EC 261/2004-delivers the sole method redress for breach of obligation under EC 261/2004 with respect to the right of care ( and that English common law provides no specific right of action of damages for recovery by an individual passenger for failure to provide that care-at least with specific consideration of Art 9). There are several people who regard that judgmen
  5. Indeed if you make a presumption of judicial discretion in the first place-and indeed further make a presumption that a definition of unreasonable conduct encompasses conduct displayed by the parties prior to the initiation of court proceedings. In which case if you could find yourself prior judicial consideration of the point -this might cause you to buck out of your current depression. As it is you can console yourself in the anti-depressive quality of self-defining law as you would prefer it to be and by using of the word "obviously"-for matters that may not, in law or practise,
  6. "Costs" is a legal term of art-as distinct from those expenses recoverable under the small claims track. "Legal costs"-such as the legal time charged by a solicitor or barrister in providing legal advice and representation to further a claim presented to the county court, that is assigned by that court to the small claims track are not ordainarily recoverable. ( An exception to this default presumption is where one of the party's has displayed "unreasonable conduct"). If you simply wish to have endorsement of what Cityboy stated that legal costs ( in the form of a solicitors bille
  7. I suggest you try and learn something rather than try to convince me you are Rumpole of the Bailey. Read the questions I asked in my opening post on this thread. Lets go back to basics-jurisdiction and procedural service of proceedings are not the same thing. Surely your deep appreciation of the law and "up close and personal" contact with the machinary of justice has revealed this to you by now-or is this just watching other amateur litigants tripping over themselves? Airlines don't employ or retain amateurs to conduct their litigation. That doesn't mean that pasengers are not getti
  8. Everybody is allowed to wallow in ignorance. I will defend your right to remain ignorant-but am less indulgant in someone inflicting ignorance on others-or even if someone delights in ignorance. I'm still not sure the "point being made" because the "point being made" is expressed in such a confusing manner. I suggest another visit to your local library to research the notion of jurisdiction in its various guises-personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction etc. Why cannot anybody present a claim against a person resident or domiciled in a foreign country (whether an indi
  9. The Art 5.3 Defence requires consideration of the law that applies as well as the precise facts that apply to a particular dispute. These substantive law matters can and should be considered in detail. This doesnt mean that your case does not retain merit and is capable of prosecution. How you prosecute your claim is also relevant. The costs consequences of litigation can/should also be considered as in any litigation. (You may even benefit from legal expenses insurance coverage to indemnify those costs). A lot of "experienced" (especially the "amateur" variety) litigators are
  10. I'm not sure who this question is addresed to. In fact personally I find it difficult to understand the questions. EC 261/2004 is European community legislation directly applying to member states-and no enabling legislation is required in the UK. For practical purposes EC 261/2004 is a "local law of our country". Whether a court in a particular State has jurisdiction to hear a dispute is usually bound by international convention between States ( public international law)-such as the Brussels Convention, the Montreal Convention (with specific reference to international air carriage) a
  11. Try posting on the flightmole forum. This is a domestic issue to which the EU might have little direct influence but there is a public consultation process underway on the operation of EC 261/2004 more generally. See European Commission-Public Consultation - Flight Mole Forum The procedural service of proceedings and jurisdiction are two separate issues. What was ticketing for the flight ( ie what was the routing?). As mentioned previously the Rehder case touches upon jurisdiction. There is the option of using the European Small claims Procedure if under 2000 Euros -b
  12. Is Ryanair UK Limited the operating carrier for EC 261/2004/the carrier as contracted? See this for further analysis Taking Ryanair to court - Flight Mole Forum
  13. I cant find this business registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England and Wales as Solictors. (Did you recive the impression they were Solicitors?) They appear to have a Dutch address in any event. Has this business taken your instructions-as a Solicitor would be obliged to do-to take your "claim to court". Do you understand what "taking your case to court means"? How can they attend Court -if they are not Solicitors? I presume as a consequence they "cant take your case to court" as only Solicitors are legally allowed to do this. If they employ "agents
  14. Has the AUC obtained the same successful outcome for the OP in that referred thread as Zamzara through her own actions did-isnt that the point Zamzara was making? It requires an examination of what service that the AUC do in fact offer that is capable of utilisation. Otherwise a passenger may be expecting more of the AUC than it can in fact deliver. Presumably if the AUC has ineffectual powers then airlines wont be pointing this out to passengers-the airlines will just allow passengers to discover this on a piecemeal basis and then rely on the fact that passengers dont routinely ta
  15. From Zamzara's thread I read that she obtained an outcome from taking court action herself-not because of anything the AUC/CAA did. I'm I getting this wrong? If this were the case would there be any point in waiting 6 weeks-perhaps after that time a passenger wouldbe increasingly be less inclined to take action?
×
×
  • Create New...