Air NZ bans customer for flying for 1 year
Feb 24, 2020, 6:24 pm
#76
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sun Peaks, Taupo.
Programs: NZ Elite, AC SE100K, Westjet Teal, Marriott Bonvoy Gold Elite, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 6,130
Is Ms.Sharma's nose so far out of joint that she is going to launch a civic action against Air NZ?
Feb 24, 2020, 6:27 pm
#77
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sun Peaks, Taupo.
Programs: NZ Elite, AC SE100K, Westjet Teal, Marriott Bonvoy Gold Elite, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 6,130
For sure. The current prevailing party would only pay should they no longer be the prevailing party in the event their is a subsequent hearing.
Feb 24, 2020, 6:40 pm
#78
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
If that is not the full Judgement, what is missing in the link provided from the Judgement of Paul Davison delivered February 21st, 2020?
Or do you mean that the Judgement in the link provided is the full Judgement, but was regarding an injunction as opposed to a trial arguing the facts of the travel ban?
Two very different things.
Or do you mean that the Judgement in the link provided is the full Judgement, but was regarding an injunction as opposed to a trial arguing the facts of the travel ban?
Two very different things.
Davison J has stated in para. 98:
"Moreover, I agree with the submission made for the respondent that as the substantive hearing is likely to take place after the expiry of the ban, the applicant will then be able to use the respondent’s air service to travel directly between Nelson and Auckland."
The Court has made this clear that this has not been over. Per the Judgment, the ban expires as early as in July 2020. So the claim will be adjudicated by then.
"Weighing the competing interests, I find that the balance of convenience in this case strongly favours the respondent, and not making an order which would remove the ban it has imposed on the applicant pending determination of the applicant’s claim. Furthermore, should the applicant succeed in establishing her claim, any loss caused by a breach of contract can be adequately compensated by way of damages."
Also - I found this practice is quite normal for British's legal system. While the U.S. legal system will deny an injunction based on the likelihood of prevailing, the British's system does not work that way. About a few months ago, I was able to observe a high profile case in Hong Kong that the trial court deny the interim injunctive reliefs (which I thought the case was coming to an ugly ending). Yet, the party applying the the reliefs is the prevailing party of the entire case.
Feb 24, 2020, 6:49 pm
#79
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sun Peaks, Taupo.
Programs: NZ Elite, AC SE100K, Westjet Teal, Marriott Bonvoy Gold Elite, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 6,130
It is NOT the full judgment.
Davison J has stated in para. 98:
"Moreover, I agree with the submission made for the respondent that as the substantive hearing is likely to take place after the expiry of the ban, the applicant will then be able to use the respondent’s air service to travel directly between Nelson and Auckland."
The Court has made this clear that this has not been over. Per the Judgment, the ban expires as early as in July 2020. So the claim will be adjudicated by then.
Davison J has stated in para. 94:
"Weighing the competing interests, I find that the balance of convenience in this case strongly favours the respondent, and not making an order which would remove the ban it has imposed on the applicant pending determination of the applicant’s claim. Furthermore, should the applicant succeed in establishing her claim, any loss caused by a breach of contract can be adequately compensated by way of damages."
Also - I found this practice is quite normal for British's legal system. While the U.S. legal system will deny an injunction based on the likelihood of prevailing, the British's system does not work that way. About a few months ago, I was able to observe a high profile case in Hong Kong that the trial court deny the interim injunctive reliefs (which I thought the case was coming to an ugly ending). Yet, the party applying the the reliefs is the prevailing party of the entire case.
Davison J has stated in para. 98:
"Moreover, I agree with the submission made for the respondent that as the substantive hearing is likely to take place after the expiry of the ban, the applicant will then be able to use the respondent’s air service to travel directly between Nelson and Auckland."
The Court has made this clear that this has not been over. Per the Judgment, the ban expires as early as in July 2020. So the claim will be adjudicated by then.
Davison J has stated in para. 94:
"Weighing the competing interests, I find that the balance of convenience in this case strongly favours the respondent, and not making an order which would remove the ban it has imposed on the applicant pending determination of the applicant’s claim. Furthermore, should the applicant succeed in establishing her claim, any loss caused by a breach of contract can be adequately compensated by way of damages."
Also - I found this practice is quite normal for British's legal system. While the U.S. legal system will deny an injunction based on the likelihood of prevailing, the British's system does not work that way. About a few months ago, I was able to observe a high profile case in Hong Kong that the trial court deny the interim injunctive reliefs (which I thought the case was coming to an ugly ending). Yet, the party applying the the reliefs is the prevailing party of the entire case.
Through the course of business I have been and am involved in a lot of litigation, always the Appellant, and never starting litigation unless I know by a balance of all probabilities that I would prevail.
One thing I learned a long time ago in litigation is to NOT be ruled by emotion or ego, only factual information that can be supported by evidence. Hence my success rate.
The case of Sharma is all about ego and emotion, these can blind people. In the event Sharma decides to pursue an action against Air NZ, it will be an interesting one to follow.
Feb 24, 2020, 7:12 pm
#80
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
Feb 24, 2020, 10:11 pm
#81
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Programs: NZ *E, QF Gold, Hertz President’s Circle, Accor Gold, PanPacific Platinum
Posts: 754
I hope Ms Sharma enjoys a JQ fuselage.... no, wait. i hope she likes her car, the Cook St Ferry and the road to CHC. I have no sympathy and she deserves everything she gets. Good on you AirNZ.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:08 pm
#82
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: New Zealand
Programs: Koru (Life), Airpoints G*E, Qantas FF(LG)
Posts: 8
As of today, the Air NZ online information about the regional lounge at Nelson states as its complete description of entitlement to access (nothing at all about ticket stock):
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:30 pm
#83
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Zealand (most of the time)
Programs: Air NZ Elite *G, Honors Gold, IHG Platinum Elite
Posts: 6,115
Anybody can pick and choose single sentence statements to back their claim like you're trying to do. I'll simply post the main Koru page which makes access rules very clear including references to ticket stock -
https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/lounges
https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/lounges
Feb 25, 2020, 1:03 am
#84
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
As of today, the Air NZ online information about the regional lounge at Nelson states as its complete description of entitlement to access (nothing at all about ticket stock):
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
Additionally the court document talked about access through bunisses not Koru.
I guess she was the one who abused the staff and given the court document it was based off a history of her behaviour. So guess the rest of the family didn't get banned as they didn't abuse the staff and didn't have a history..
There is a difference about being annoyed about being denied longue access and staying respectful vs losing your cool and abusing staff.
Last edited by nzkarit; Feb 25, 2020 at 1:09 am
Feb 25, 2020, 3:18 am
#86
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Missed this.
Unlikely. Interim relief order is generally not appealable.
This is a civil action against NZ. The judgment only represented the interim relief so far.
In term of a civic action, I am not sure what you mean. But as a SOE, I do believe the NZ Parliament may have some says.
Unlikely. Interim relief order is generally not appealable.
In term of a civic action, I am not sure what you mean. But as a SOE, I do believe the NZ Parliament may have some says.
Feb 25, 2020, 4:37 am
#87
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NZ
Programs: NZ*E, QF-G, EK-P
Posts: 605
As of today, the Air NZ online information about the regional lounge at Nelson states as its complete description of entitlement to access (nothing at all about ticket stock):
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
Not liking someone’s behaviour based on a supplied court document doesn’t to me qualify as either.. flippant perhaps but hardly racist or hateful.
Feb 25, 2020, 5:26 am
#88
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,340
As of today, the Air NZ online information about the regional lounge at Nelson states as its complete description of entitlement to access (nothing at all about ticket stock):
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
Feb 25, 2020, 5:32 am
#89
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
As of today, the Air NZ online information about the regional lounge at Nelson states as its complete description of entitlement to access (nothing at all about ticket stock):
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
Feb 25, 2020, 11:03 am
#90
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sun Peaks, Taupo.
Programs: NZ Elite, AC SE100K, Westjet Teal, Marriott Bonvoy Gold Elite, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 6,130
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
Please show the quotes that are racist and hate filled.
I reread the comments from others, do not see anything racist or hate filled.
Your commentary about comments being racist when none exist would point to a victim mentality, or grasping at straws.
We all need to hold ourselves accountable in life, and when we don't others need to for us.