Scots Law Ryanair compensation claim

[Douglas52]

I have an appeal in front of the Sheriff principal.

 

The defenders are claiming that my court does not have jurisdiction.

 

Scots Law legal eagles: Under the Civil Jurisdiction & Judgements order 2001 is our claim for compensation a contractual obligation

 

I believe the compensation claim is a contract term implied by statute (denied boarding compensation regulation) therefore the compensation is a contractual obligation therefore under :

Schedule 8 2(b) (in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question.

 

it seems my court should have jurisdiction because the monies are due to be paid in the sheriffdom.

 

Can anyone confirm my logic (pleadings).

 

No pressure but the appeal calls on Tuesday 18th March!!

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

hi

 

Don't know so my reply is to bump your thread

 

REGARDS

 

Andy

[Parkvale]

Will ask one of the Scottish Mods to lok at it.

[rory32]

Does this relate to your previous thread Douglas?

[Douglas52]

Hi Rory

 

yes it is but you can drop the thread cos we've been in front of the Sheriff Principal. It was very interesting, and I was fine after the nerves settled. Prepared a lot of authorities on changing their defence and contractual obligations but before everything jurisdiction was the only issue and my gut feel is that we will lose on this point- not Montreal but on the CJJ act - I think it will fall back to a place where they have fixed property- Prestwick airport.

 

However the sheriff said we could ask for the case to be sisted for 18 months given the circumstances or withdrawn and re-started before 2011!. This would allow my son to return so we could lead evidence. Maybe I can get them to agree everything (avoiding the need to lead evidence) and just get the court to decide if the compensation claim is valid based on public facts. (Fat chance I think!!) (Would you believe the opposition solicitor stated in his rebuttal that cancellation was the ultimate delay!!! trying to get Montreal to stick!!)

 

Anyway some good news (I hope) is that because it was the defence's fault we ended up at an appeal I asked for expenses win OR lose and I am reasonably confident I will get them- the defence suggested none were due either way!! Thes will be at the summary cause rate - not small claims so they will be worth a few quid more!!

 

I'll keep you all posted. Sorry I forgot I should have post this all in the same thread - I was in a rush!!

[buzby]

Just a clarification on Prestwick, Ryanair only have a 'virtual' presence there - they only rent check-in desks from the airport, and they also have a deal for a service hangar, nothing that would concludively lead to a court to conclude it was domiciled there.

 

That said, surely it is a pointless argument anyway, as a consumer and offering flights from the UK, you have the right to declare the jurisdiction of your local court - avoiding a need to trip down to Prestwick? Secondly, (and in the meantime) would you not find it useful to raise this with your MEP, as I found mine really hot on issues like these that can be put in front of an EU commissioner.

[Douglas52]

Thanks for the advice Buzby but jurisdiction over Consumer Contracts does not apply to a contract for transport!! - see the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgemnts Act 1982 Section 4 13 3 (b) which is harmonised throughout the EC.

 

Unbelievable isn't it!! International companies selling internationaly to consumers but protected from consumer protection legislation both by jurisdiction and in other legislation (such as distance/internet selling and others). I believe this exemption is to allow the Montreal Convention superiority (or its predecessor the Warsaw convention) but I saw one source which says Warsaw was designed to limit the airlines liability so that they could obtain insurance at reasonable cost and therefore encourage the fledgling airline industry. Surely such protection is no longer required!!

 

Anyway I intend to complain to the EC as suggested because clearly there is now an issue of jurisdiction wrt the denied boarding compensation regulations.

 

Unfortunately we lost the appeal on the basis of jurisdiction but it was the defence who requested a hearing in Ayr as an alternative not me so I will be happy to oblige and if that fails we will go to Dublin.

 

Thanks for your advice any more comments are extremely welcome.

[buzby]

Ta for the heads-up, I had forgotten that caverat... I do think you'll do most good via the EC and your MEP, and with Ryanair constantly 'bashing' EC ministers, they'll like something to respond with! That said, an action in the Dublin court should be fun - although their Small Claims track isn't as wide-ranging as that available in E&W & Scotland.

 

See here;

 

Small Claims Procedure?opendocument&l=en

[FordAnglia]

I have an appeal in front of the Sheriff principal.

 

The defenders are claiming that my court does not have jurisdiction.

 

Scots Law legal eagles: Under the Civil Jurisdiction & Judgements order 2001 is our claim for compensation a contractual obligation

 

I believe the compensation claim is a contract term implied by statute (denied boarding compensation regulation) therefore the compensation is a contractual obligation therefore under :

Schedule 8 2(b) (in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question.

 

it seems my court should have jurisdiction because the monies are due to be paid in the sheriffdom.

 

Can anyone confirm my logic (pleadings).

 

No pressure but the appeal calls on Tuesday 18th March!!

 

Hi I'm new to the forum but wished to know if there is a prequel to this thread which I find most interesting.

 

What was the original claim as addressed to Ryanair?

 

Did you make a claim for delay under the Montreal/ Warsaw convention regime concurrently with a claim under EC 261/2004 ( The EU denied boarding regulation)?

 

What was the precise ticketed route ( to begin to determine the operable regime)?

 

Is Ryanair attempting to claim that the Warsaw/Montreal regime takes precedence over EC 261/2004 regarding forum for proceedings.

 

This maybe interesting not only in your case but in a wider context with other passenger claims. A passenger might on many occassions look to use the convention in conjunction with EC 261/2004 to obtain a favourable forum for proceedings-perhaps most commonly the place of destination on a round trip ticket.

[scaniaman]

In Ryanair's terms and conditions or other bumf, it should say under which country's laws the contract is made or disputes are to be settled.