Ryanair

[Agathachristie]

I would like the UK law to change so we can take Ryanair to court in England. I was unsuccessful to take the airline to court in the county court in Brighton. Although cross border juristication exist the court declined to serve the papers to Dublin. I did complain to the OFT and the european commission. They may take up the case and fine UK, hopefully.

In the meantime I wan to press for a change of law in the UK, making it possible to sue Ryanair in England (office in Stansted).

Who is with me and support me? I need many people for that.

Give me your thoughts.

[Thailand]

Good for you. I'm sick of this nation purporting to be in Europe and then making up it's own rules as it goes along. Customs being the foulest perpetrator.

 

Have a read of this link, it might help (I have skim read it ages ago - but know you can screw them in Dublin, or any EU state, should you wish)

 

RECENT CASE-LAW - Results

 

Glad I never tried to serve Stansted then - I thought it might fail. Good luck to you and well done - I support thee!

[FordAnglia]

I would like the UK law to change so we can take Ryanair to court in England. I was unsuccessful to take the airline to court in the county court in Brighton. Although cross border juristication exist the court declined to serve the papers to Dublin. I did complain to the OFT and the european commission. They may take up the case and fine UK, hopefully.

In the meantime I wan to press for a change of law in the UK, making it possible to sue Ryanair in England (office in Stansted).

Who is with me and support me? I need many people for that.

Give me your thoughts.

 

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 -but the English court would otherwise need to have jurisdiction ( for example by reference to Rehder).

 

The ESCP has different costs consequences-but service would simply be by post-when jurisdiction is not in issue.

 

It ultimately might go back to the routing of your flight. Did the flight depart or arrive in the UK?

[buzby]

Oh c'mon!

 

You want to impose English LAw of foreign companies?

 

Flip the coin - should foreigners (and EU nationals) be allowed to impose their local laws on our country? Of course not.

[Agathachristie]

Since when is Ryanair a foreign company??? Its MAIN HUB is in Stansted, it uses a loophole to avoid action by consumers and workers as it has a Dublin office. It reminds me of tax avoiding. Similar thing is here.

What would you do if I operate as a dentist in the UK and tell you "Oh no you can not sue me, I have a second home in Dublin, go there."

[buzby]

It IS a foreign company, registered in Dublin and paying taxes there. All the directors are Irish nationals. Hubs are irrelevant - you'll be saying BA is Spanish because it has hubs in Madrid (and other countries). Stansted may be their main UK hub, but they have many others across europe..

 

Your analogy is nonsensical. We're talking about corporate responsibilities, not where you live.

[scaniaman]

Can't understand how people are having difficulty nailing Ryanair just because their registered office is in IR. About two years ago, friends and self had action taken against Spanish holiday club. This was because new cross border EU consumer rules had just been activated in UK. They were active in Europe a year earlier. We actually did most of our paperwork through a burd in Madrid. Shall attempt to look out name of EU wide Consumer Regulations which should cover this.

[buzby]

An EU action can be raised again Ryanair (or indeed ANY EU company in a member state). the advice is based on folk wasting money eaising action via Moneyclaim or the Small Claims track - both these litigation routes are invalid.

[FordAnglia]

Oh c'mon!

 

You want to impose English LAw of foreign companies?

 

Flip the coin - should foreigners (and EU nationals) be allowed to impose their local laws on our country? Of course not.

 

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) and other international treaties.

 

A dispute between one party in one county and another party in another country would be a matter of private international law.

 

Most of this is fairly well settled for dealing with cross border disputes. The fact that you may not know this or don't understand it doesnt alter the fact that it exists.

 

If you don't agree with it the best thing to do is call you MP and express your opinion to your elected representative and express your opinion that the UK should abrogate itself from those international treaties ( or withdraw membership from the EU with respect to Ec 261/2004).

 

 

If you wish to understand these concepts may I suggest a visit to a local library and skim through some of the opening chapters of books entitled "Public International law" and "Private International law" .

[buzby]

No thans - not required The point being made is that (for the bulk of CAGgers) are only aware of the actions available to them from their local court(s). International Law in all its facets are NOT handled there, and these courts do not have jurusdiction.

 

Nobody is saying these EU firms cannot be held accouuntable - the issue is you CANNOT do this in the County or Magistrate's Court (or Sheriff Court's for that mattr).

[FordAnglia]

No thans - not required The point being made is that (for the bulk of CAGgers) are only aware of the actions available to them from their local court(s). International Law in all its facets are NOT handled there, and these courts do not have jurusdiction.

 

Nobody is saying these EU firms cannot be held accouuntable - the issue is you CANNOT do this in the County or Magistrate's Court (or Sheriff Court's for that mattr).

 

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 individual or corporation) in a UK court of first instance such as a County Court or Sheriffs court?

 

Whose courts have potential jurisdiction to hear such a dispute. Which other courts are you suggesting as an alternative someone should petition to hear such a dispute?

 

This could be either through the small claims track (or other track) or by using the European Small Claims Procedure-that is effectively administered by the County Court. (Apply similar to Scottish or NI court systems).

 

The Magistrates forum is not an obvious forum for a civil grievance for claims of this type.

 

I don’t know or assume the capabilities or awareness of CAG users. I do know that those users can be delivered inaccurate and ill reasoned opinions masquerading as fact as much as the general population. The sadness is that those users might rely upon that delivered output.

[buzby]

Thank you for your erudite contribution. A shame you want to make it degenerate into a slanging match. Whilst I'm sure (as a troll), with nearly 20 months of being a CAGger yet only managed to make 14 contributions you feel your comments have some merit, as for your not understanding the point being made - is pretty self-evident, and even more so when the airline in question is not domiciled within the UK (as mentioned in an adjacent thread). As to the matter of jurisdiction, I have been to a number of hearings where actions have been struck out as incompetent as the organisation's registered office (outwith GB) had NOT been served, and that a rejection of the action as being improper due to the local court not having jurisdiction for another EU state resulted in the claimant wasting their money.

 

As to WHICH courts had jurisdiction, I suggest you check the threads in this Forum as this matter has already been discussed at length, and the address of the EU office where such claims should be registered in the first instance.

 

As to your last paragraph - I quite agree and support your sentiments, and I trust you will join us to ensure a broad debate in these matters, rather than lurk, as you have done in the past.

 

 

I'm sure you would not mind being asked a direct question?

 

1) How many airline compensation cases have you actually handled / litigated or represented? 2) If there were any, did you win?

 

I ask not out of interest, but of personal experience as an LIP who has seen 'the law' working at first hand, and knowledge that a strong sense of injustice is not enough to secure a successful result. An incorrect or erroneous filing means wasted funds that could be better used for personal purposes than adding to the funds amassed by the courts for doing SFA.

[car2403]

This is similar to my claim with RBS, is it not - the same applies?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/110150-car2403-rbs-plc-default-3.html#post1277489

 

The Court issued the claim, it was settled. Looks like the issuing of the claim is at the discretion of the Court, then, so can you try another local Court, perhaps?

[buzby]

This is similar to my claim with RBS, is it not - the same applies?

 

No. Scotland isn't a 'foreign territory', and neither is it in a separate EU state. It is certainly possible for anyone in England to sue someone in Scotland in their local court, and once judgement has been given, use local Sheriff Officers to enforce. The converse is also true.

 

Style Finance has had a chequered history, being created by the finance department of a (now defunct) store, then ramped up as a general retail store card by the Clydesdale Bank (initially s Scottish bank), now a subsidiary of an Australian conglomerate, who then sold it to the RBS Group. RBS of course also own Direct Line, NatWest and have a number of valid presence within the UK, so they'd have a pretty difficult job in avoiding their responsibilities on national grounds.

 

Of course, the UK taxpayer bailed out this firm, and has absolutely no say in the matter of its business practices.

[car2403]

Ah, I'll shut it, then

[buzby]

Actually, I found some notes that indicated English Court orders were not always treated in this way, and could be safely ignored unless rubber stamped by a Sheriff (so the Sheriff Officers would act) or the action was properly raised in one of Scotland's courts. I can't find out when this changed, but I suspect around 1974-1978 or thereabouts. It used to catch lots of folk out, but of course less so now because of this cross-border co-operation.

 

Meanwhile, Scotland-based individuals had to hot-foot it to Carlisle or Berwick on Tweed to start the ball rolling!

[FordAnglia]

Thank you for your erudite contribution. A shame you want to make it degenerate into a slanging match. Whilst I'm sure (as a troll), with nearly 20 months of being a CAGger yet only managed to make 14 contributions you feel your comments have some merit, as for your not understanding the point being made - is pretty self-evident, and even more so when the airline in question is not domiciled within the UK (as mentioned in an adjacent thread). As to the matter of jurisdiction, I have been to a number of hearings where actions have been struck out as incompetent as the organisation's registered office (outwith GB) had NOT been served, and that a rejection of the action as being improper due to the local court not having jurisdiction for another EU state resulted in the claimant wasting their money.

 

As to WHICH courts had jurisdiction, I suggest you check the threads in this Forum as this matter has already been discussed at length, and the address of the EU office where such claims should be registered in the first instance.

 

As to your last paragraph - I quite agree and support your sentiments, and I trust you will join us to ensure a broad debate in these matters, rather than lurk, as you have done in the past.

 

 

I'm sure you would not mind being asked a direct question?

 

1) How many airline compensation cases have you actually handled / litigated or represented? 2) If there were any, did you win?

 

I ask not out of interest, but of personal experience as an LIP who has seen 'the law' working at first hand, and knowledge that a strong sense of injustice is not enough to secure a successful result. An incorrect or erroneous filing means wasted funds that could be better used for personal purposes than adding to the funds amassed by the courts for doing SFA.

 

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 getting short changed very often in the area of EC 261/2004.

 

 

Have a look at this linked appellate decision.

 

KENNETH NIVEN+HELEN GILLESPIE v. RYANAIR LIMITED, 15 April 2008, Sheriff Principal Sir Stephen S.T. Young

 

Now you should be able to analyse this-with respect to some of the cross border aspects I introduced before-and begin to see the distinction between service of process and jurisdiction. Are you yet feeling out of your depth-or does your "LIP experience" still hold good in all circumstances?

 

This appellate decision pre-dates the Rehder ruling by the ECJ-and wouldnt have affected the outcome-but other flight routing variations would by bound by Rehder.

 

 

To answer your questions - although you say these are not answers you are interested in-so presumably was asked just for effect-but I will indulge you anyway.

 

1) Many, over many years -hint:-not as an "LIP" 2) Lost count, but the notion of "winning" and "losing" is often relative in the world of grown up litigation.

 

Look-some of this substantive law is quite complex and specialised stuff (practitioners typically have dedicated post-graduate study of air law under their belt as well as their professional qualification).

 

"Grey beard " posters and past frequenters of small claims courts may think they know all the answers because they have a passing knowledge of some procedural form filling . The expert, specialised, professional lawyers in this field don't fall into that trap.

 

I'm happy to explore some the issues but dont pretend you know the answers just to justify an impression of credibility on this board-because many of those answers haven't yet been found. (Also to someone who does understand this subject some of your comments upthread regarding service/jurisdcition are clearly confused or just plain silly).

 

The point you raise regarding costs and the risk of adverse costs exposure is important in any litigation-but should be deconstructed and explained in more detail-as a professional advisor would do-if you wish to broach the subject-do it properly. ( Of course many people benefit from legal expenses insurance indemnity that might cover a dispute of this type).

 

In the English small claims track that risk is most usually limited -as you probably already know to "expenses" as found within Part 27 of the CPR.

 

Unless someone understand the fundamantal merits in law of a grievance-moving to a consideration of the "costs" risks is in any event a premature and lazy analysis.

[car2403]

FordAnglia, I think you have to accept that the information provided and the questions being asked of you on this forum are from those that either have experience of the situation you are highlighting, or have experience that they see as similar to that but are responding in a hypothetical manner, by applying experience from other areas to your situational question and trying to help.

 

Seriously, if you really want an expert opinion that is fully insured and supported by a fully accurate legal viewpoint, I would highly recommend that you seek legal advice from a suitably qualified professional.

 

Please be aware of our limitations, both in experience, perhaps, of your situation and the lack of a sound grounding for comeback if the information you are given, which is given in good faith, turns out to be inaccurate in your situation.

 

What I won't allow is flaming of other posters, who are here to help and support others, doing so by sacrificing their own time and without reward. That isn't what CAG is about. This isn't aimed (solely) at the OP, neither.

[chris600uk]

I've just found this thread, and having been through this in the past with Easyjet, who replaced the damaged suitcase with a cheaper one, I wondered how we'd get on if the same thing happened to us flying with Ryanair.

 

 

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of air transport of passengers from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with only one airline, which is the operating carrier, the court having jurisdiction to deal with a claim for compensation founded on that transport contract and on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, is that, at the applicant's choice, which has territorial jurisdiction over the place of departure or place of arrival of the aircraft, as those places are agreed in that contract.

 

So does this mean I can sue ryanair from the uk if they damage my bag and won't give me it's replacement value?

 

Does this answer the OP's question?

Edited July 11, 2010 by chris600uk
missed a small word, not important, just needed tidying

[chris600uk]

I'd be really interested to know why the court refused to accept the OP's application, because it appears to me, that the court have jurisdiction if the flight either starts or ends in the UK.

 

That's why in the case Ford Anglia provided a link to - the case was dismissed, and why in the case of Mr and Mrs O'Carroll, the case could be heard.

 

Another case failed because it was made through the small claims court against Ryanair stanstead. It failed because that company doesn't fly anything, anywhere. But the person making the claim in that case was able to pay an extra fee and change their claim to the district court and have a summons served on the solicitors employed by Ryanair Limited (Dublin).

 

Does anyone have any comment on that, and has anyone successfully sued Ryanair through the Irish Small Claims Online system

[buzby]

The Irish Small Claims system is very limited, and unless changed recently, you need to be resident in, or have a representative located within the Republic to pursue them. As a company, Ryanair have have a good few run ins at hte Four Courts in Dublin. they win some and they lose some but most that I have seen were not small claims but full (High Court equivalent) actions.

[chris600uk]

So you would have to hire an irish solicitor to represent you - right?

[chris600uk]

Hang on, how did the O'Carrolls manage to taken them to court in Aberdeen then?

[buzby]

Sure, an Irish Solicitor would be OK, or indeed a para-legal would do the same for less. From memory, the O'Carrols didn't use Small Claims.

[chris600uk]

Who did the O'Carrolls use, did they do it themselves?