I came across this news article and have been assured it is 100% true.
Being a trusting person I then double checked - and it checks out unfortunately.
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD523/2014/actions
[TABLE="class: lhs-header-table"]
[TR]
[TH]Court:[/TH]
[TD]Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Number:[/TH]
[TD]NSD523/2014[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Title:[/TH]
[TD]Emirates ARBN 073 569 696 v Vjekoslava Matic & Ors[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Filing Date:[/TH]
[TD]27-May-2014[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Finalised Date:[/TH]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
It really does bring a new meaning to customer service, a bit like the line from the movie Fletch, "Ben Dover, pleased to meet you.".... you get the picture.
Emirates sues passengers after flying them to wrong destination | Altmedia
When Australians Vjeckoslav Matic and Matt Atkins boarded an Emirates flight to New York in 2012, they knew they were flying into a storm.
But it would be a different kind to the hurricane they’d been watching ravage their destination on TV screens throughout Sydney airport.
It was a legal tempest with the world’s largest airline that would envelop the environmental engineer and film sales professional for the next three years and test the sea wall of Australian consumer law.
It was no surprise to the pair that when their plane landed in Dubai to refuel, their following flight to New York was cancelled. As per standard industry practice, Emirates gave them a coupon to stay in a hotel for three nights until the next available flight to New York.
But in the middle of that night, they received a knock on the door. It was an Emirates staff member who told them the carrier, which in 2012 raked in US $575 million of profit, was no longer prepared to pay for their short stay in Dubai. Instead they were told they would have to fly to an alternative destination that morning.
Their options were San Francisco, Washington DC and Dallas, all of which being more than 2400 kilometres away from the destination printed on their tickets. With Washington airport likely to be also closed, and Dallas being the next closest destination to New York, the pair opted to fly there.
They then drove for five days in budget rental cars to New York, where they were moving to work.
It was the cost of car hire and accommodation during their journey from Dallas to New York that they sought from Emirates.
After attempts from Mr Matic and Mr Atkins to settle outside of court, in which they were prepared to settle for as little as $1000 reimbursement, they took Emirates to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) and won.
Last May, ACAT ordered that Emirates pay the passengers $1891.68.
But not only did Emirates refuse to adhere to the judgement, they sued Mr Matic, Mr Atkins and ACAT in the Federal court later that month. Emirates demanded that ACAT revoke its decision and claimed $11,000 in legal costs from the passengers.
“It was clear to us on that first night in Dubai, bullying was a tactic they were happy to use when dealing with customers,” Mr Matic said.
The airline cited the 1999 Montreal Convention, of which Australia is a signatory, which states in article 33 that “an action for damages must be brought […] either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business.”
Emirates has argued that ACAT did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case as it is not a court.
It costs more than $3500 to initiate proceedings in the Federal Court. A room for two people at the Copthorne Airport Hotel, where Mr Matic and Mr Atkins were initially accommodated, costs around $100 a night in today’s prices.
Being a trusting person I then double checked - and it checks out unfortunately.
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD523/2014/actions
[TABLE="class: lhs-header-table"]
[TR]
[TH]Court:[/TH]
[TD]Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Number:[/TH]
[TD]NSD523/2014[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Title:[/TH]
[TD]Emirates ARBN 073 569 696 v Vjekoslava Matic & Ors[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Filing Date:[/TH]
[TD]27-May-2014[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Finalised Date:[/TH]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
It really does bring a new meaning to customer service, a bit like the line from the movie Fletch, "Ben Dover, pleased to meet you.".... you get the picture.
Emirates sues passengers after flying them to wrong destination | Altmedia
When Australians Vjeckoslav Matic and Matt Atkins boarded an Emirates flight to New York in 2012, they knew they were flying into a storm.
But it would be a different kind to the hurricane they’d been watching ravage their destination on TV screens throughout Sydney airport.
It was a legal tempest with the world’s largest airline that would envelop the environmental engineer and film sales professional for the next three years and test the sea wall of Australian consumer law.
It was no surprise to the pair that when their plane landed in Dubai to refuel, their following flight to New York was cancelled. As per standard industry practice, Emirates gave them a coupon to stay in a hotel for three nights until the next available flight to New York.
But in the middle of that night, they received a knock on the door. It was an Emirates staff member who told them the carrier, which in 2012 raked in US $575 million of profit, was no longer prepared to pay for their short stay in Dubai. Instead they were told they would have to fly to an alternative destination that morning.
Their options were San Francisco, Washington DC and Dallas, all of which being more than 2400 kilometres away from the destination printed on their tickets. With Washington airport likely to be also closed, and Dallas being the next closest destination to New York, the pair opted to fly there.
They then drove for five days in budget rental cars to New York, where they were moving to work.
It was the cost of car hire and accommodation during their journey from Dallas to New York that they sought from Emirates.
After attempts from Mr Matic and Mr Atkins to settle outside of court, in which they were prepared to settle for as little as $1000 reimbursement, they took Emirates to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) and won.
Last May, ACAT ordered that Emirates pay the passengers $1891.68.
But not only did Emirates refuse to adhere to the judgement, they sued Mr Matic, Mr Atkins and ACAT in the Federal court later that month. Emirates demanded that ACAT revoke its decision and claimed $11,000 in legal costs from the passengers.
“It was clear to us on that first night in Dubai, bullying was a tactic they were happy to use when dealing with customers,” Mr Matic said.
The airline cited the 1999 Montreal Convention, of which Australia is a signatory, which states in article 33 that “an action for damages must be brought […] either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business.”
Emirates has argued that ACAT did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case as it is not a court.
It costs more than $3500 to initiate proceedings in the Federal Court. A room for two people at the Copthorne Airport Hotel, where Mr Matic and Mr Atkins were initially accommodated, costs around $100 a night in today’s prices.
