uk1

The way it works in theory is that individual state law is in sync with EU law accross the EU and should be applied identically and those laws were based on UK law. That is why each state reports determinations to the EU so that they can bully states into compliance.

uk1

The corporation can state what they want in their Ts and Cs but it is for the consumer to bring the case wherever he chooses and the system then to decide. When bought online then it is most likely heard in the country in which the passenger made his booking from ie normally home.

philthegreek

Thanks that is useful information to have

Davidxg

On jurisdiction/governing law the general position is governed by EU Regulation. A consumer dealing with an airline will be able to sue in the courts of their "home" and while the governing law can be chosen by the parties to the contract, I would expect that BA would find it convenient to select English law as the governing law of the contract. If suing (or being sued) in an English Court, proving a foreign law can be very expensive and will require expert evidence to be given as to the meaning and effect of the foreign law.

seattle29

If I was skipping the final leg once or even twice a year, I honestly wouldn't be worrying right now. BA aren't going to sue you or close your account.

However, if I was skipping the final leg on a monthly basis, then I'd be more worried.

Remember the original post:

Very close to the situation = high profile abusers who have probably flown hundreds of times, skipping the final leg every time.

These are the kind of people that BA wants to clamp down on, not the casual traveller who skips a leg once a year after stopping off overnight in London, then changing their plans to fly the next day.

Raffles

Er, no. Nice try though! That is not exactly 'good source' material!

uk1

I cannot think of a set of circumstances where a UK consumer making a booking on his telephone or computer in the UK can be forced by BA to have his day in court anywhere other than the UK whether BA find it convenient or not. He or BA files the claim, he specifies as an individual that he wishes to have it heard in a court convenient to his home and I am not aware of any wriggle room where BA can avoid it.

Davidxg

I agree there is no wriggle room as regards the venue for any litigation that might arise, but I do think that in terms of the governing law (a different issue to the location of the Court proceedings) a more complex legal regime operates - but in practice I suspect that BA would not even attempt to impose anything other than an English law contract on a customer based in England. If it were to seek to impose some other legal system this might well prove to be ineffective, but in terms of choice of governing law the Regulation does permit and support the choice of the contracting parties.

In practice people based in England should expect (should it come to it) to sue or be sued in an English Court under English Law. I am not suggesting that any other outcome is even close to likely.

uk1

I made npower traipse down to Basingstoke for a nice day a couple of months back in the rain for the day, and they sent their barrister all the way up from Sussex for the day with her pull along case. She wafted in all toffee nosed like and asked the court people where the robing room was. Their face was a picture. And it cost them an arm and a leg. Happy days.

I wish BA would take someone to court so we can put all this behind us!

Globaliser

Stick around. You also have much to learn about posters here, many of whom will deliberately not say much about what they do in real life, or from which that can be inferred. Repeatedly saying "I'm an experienced lawyer" doesn't impress very much; there are very many of them here.

Flexible preferences

Excellent! How NOT to win friends and influence people

Flexible preferences

That isn't the way Davidxg has come across to me, although forums can be funny things and sometimes what we read can be misunderstood, misinterpreted or influenced by our own biases, mine included.

Anyway as a relatively new member shouldn't we be welcoming him and making him feel comfortable? Oh wait, isn't that the role of Ambassadors?

Often1

And that is the problem with trying to make complex things simple. They aren't. People deride the "fine print" in contracts, but the fact is that the language is there for a reason. When one is forced to simplify for the sake of "clarity" what one person thinks is important may not be to the other person.

Many of the undertakings made in the name of pro-consumerism, are far from that.

Davidxg

Well, it is frustrating and rather disappointing that the other lawyers seem to hold back from a clear, open and transparent discussion of what is wrong with what I say (as opposed to saying B is the case, not A). It is up to people to say as much or as little as they want, but while some might find being cryptic impressive, I don't. Clearly I can infer that the poster who says it is all complicated (and who advises airlines) is a barrister (as a solicitor would not refer to taking a brief, that is what barristers do). It has also become apparent that some posters may have a highly relevant but undeclared role which might explain why they are pushing a particular line in discussion. I am not expecting a formal declaration of interests as it is easy enough to see how some participants could have ulterior motives for their comments. They, in particular I am sure, have the strongest reasons for keeping quiet about who they are in "real life" - and I can see why that anonymity should be respected in return for their participation. It is all a very delicate balance. The forum is, I assume, also routinely monitored by BA (I know they have re-established someone to act as an official link to the forum).

I would hate to think that "confessing" to a professional qualification directly relevant to the subject under discussion is a taboo thing to do - repeating it ad nauseam would of course be tedious (and, one would think, should be unnecessary).

Globaliser - I do appreciate your comment which to me has a hint of a conciliatory note. I am used to rigorous debate and have been trained to have the greatest respect for views which are presented with justification (on a serious topic). There is time for fun too and I do like the sense of fun here.

So, I shall try not to needlessly tread on toes or provoke. I much prefer light to heat but can understand how fog is often the end result.

TravellingSalesman

Well... in this case NickB was responding to another poster citing German law (see post 540), so I would think that referring to a judgement by the highest 'regular' court in Germany would be appropriate...