One unhappy (and litigious) camper

[medhead]

Actually that's an interesting point

If (if!) his argument is accepted that "QF had a contract to get me there at a certain time and the flight was late so QF breached that contract" then it is irrelevant to that breach that he could have booked earlier flights. You can't get out of a breach of contract by arguing "you should have put different terms in the contract and then we wouldn't have breached it and you wouldn't have suffered a loss".

If his argument is "the flight was delayed because QF were negligent, which caused me to suffer loss", is it a good argument to say in response "there was contributory negligence by you because you could have booked an earlier flight"? I don't know. It doesn't sound like a particularly good argument to me. It might depend on how much time he had actually left for himself to get to his appointment if there had been an on-time arrival.

A better response by QF to the negligence argument might be to say "too bad so sad if your flight was delayed because we were negligent, we don't have to compensate you for pure economic loss without proof of physical damage".

I guess the other missing information is how long was the delay. :?: My assumption is no more than 15 minutes, which makes me think proof of loss/physical damage would be hard.

But my comment/question was based on that assumption. If a 15 minute delay was such a big problem why not book the day before. Another issue would be acts of God that could cause a delay. In summary, I guess I'm thinking about potential contributing negligence.

Having not read the 'Tiser story I'm also assuming it's light on fact and detail.

BTW I like how you say it's an interesting point and go on to demonstrate how stupid it is. You should be a barrister or something like that.

 

[Alanslegal]

But what would be the alleged charges for the court?

It is very easy to commence civil proceedings. All I need is your name and an address I can find you at. I draft a Statement of Claim (and depending on how much money I am claiming) I take it to the appropriate court (based on the dollar figure) where I pay the appropriate filing fee, get the document stamped. I then need to get this original document to you, and the easiest way is to engage a process server (around $60) where they will go to your address and serve the paperwork on you. They will also prepare an Affidavit of Service so that can be filed at Court to demonstrate that you know about the court case. You might think it is a frivolous claim but if you do not follow the strict court time frames, the amount that I claim could automatically be granted if you do not reply or turn up at Court.

Once someone has a name and address, anyone can start the court process - it is as simple as that. I will give you an example, the Dallas Buyers Club are currently dragging internet provider iinet through the courts at this very moment demanding that they release their customer database. iinet is refusing to do so on privacy grounds, and will only do so if ordered by a court. The DBC want names and addresses so they can start sending invoices to customers who are allegedly downloading illegal content. It's called speculative invoicing. A movie on blue ray disc might cost $20.00 at the shops but these invoices, they might be asking for $200.00 per movie plus administration fee of $50.00. If those invoices are not paid, letter of demands are sent out, then ultimately court proceedings. They now know who you are, where you live (and also, the prudent lawyers will do title searches to see if you own real property so when they win, they know they will be getting paid). So if you downloaded 10 movies over the last 12 months and they claim $2,500.00 - this can add up quite fast and be serious. They might just say pay $1,000 now as full and final settlement - and everyday people will pay because they are afraid of the legal process, but it will still be an easy win for these lawyers acting for the large movie studios (once they have your name and address).

 

[Anna]

You should be a barrister or something like that.

I don't drink coffee :mrgreen:

It is an interesting point about booking an earlier flight, because if it is argued that he should have booked an earlier flight then it must first be accepted that QF do not have any legal obligation to ensure the flight lands at the scheduled time. Because if QF did have that obligation then he wouldn't have to book an earlier flight :shock:. But regardless of the legal argument that goes around in a circle, my personal view is that if you have an important commitment that you need to get to, you have to allow for the "**** happens" factor. Which includes factoring in the possibility of delayed flights.

 

[SuzieQ68]

Choked on my coffee this morning when I read this in the paper. Laughed when I read he was Silver with QF. Thought it was April Fools Day.....

 

[bismarck]

I just love that he's not *actually* switching carriers. He's just *considering* switching carriers.

But prepared to take them to court.

Bizarre.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Agreed they have to provide a schedule. People use it as part of the decision making process therefore in my opinion it would be an integral component of the contract.

I can not however see the customer winning but as others have said it highlights the problem that many face each day and offers up opportunities for improvement.

Cases like this are the first step towards a European style 261/2004 being introduced in Australia.
Although I don't agree with his methods - good on him for having the balls to stand up for what he believes in.

 

[boomy]

I was reading with interest up to the point he says he is considering to cancel his Silver membership. Can't take him seriously after saying something like that.

 

[dajop]

These case could raise interesting questions regarding scheduling of public transport (be it train, coach, ferry etc). If it went to court (unlikely), it's not a stretch to consider a finding that goes against Qantas could set a (bad) precedent for any operators of transport where passengers pre-book a particular service at a particular time.

 

[Chrisd26]

Perhaps it's an example of Bad Karma?

 

[anat0l]

Cases like this are the first step towards a European style 261/2004 being introduced in Australia.

Would not be the first time that such a statement was said let alone ending up in the media. And look where we still are.

EU 261/2004 may give stronger protections and assurances of compensation where due, but in practice (most of the time) it is a frustrating slow process to exact that compensation due.

I am not entirely sure the passenger in question would have received a better resolve with a similar regulation operating here, except perhaps for token duties of care at the airport for the delays and possibly the opportunities to refund or rebook. My guess is they would still proceed as they did here.

 

[VPS]

I was reading with interest up to the point he says he is considering to cancel his Silver membership. Can't take him seriously after saying something like that.

I loved that point to - yep - ring Qantas - I'd like to cancel my silver membership

Slightly OT - I changed a MASA yesterday and gave the operator a big rap in the survey at the end and got a phone call from Qantas today thanking me for my feedback

 

[seanpodge]

Not sure how realistic this particular court action is, but if it is a catalyst for stronger consumer protections, then it'll be worthwhile. Certainly I think it's pretty reasonable for customers to expect that the schedule of the flight that they booked has some semblance in reality. It shouldn't be that for long delays airlines can just say "excrement occurs" while still keeping all the ticket revenue for themselves.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I think the story is so "light on" with info that it's not realistic for anyone reading to come to any firm conclusion. How long was the delay? What was the value of the lost contracts? Were they apparently drunk at the time (RSA)? What caused the delay(s)? Were there other options?

For someone to threaten legal action and......heaven forbid, cancelling his silver membership........cripes it must be serious!

Like others, I checked the date....not April yet. My suspicion is that it's all a wind up for some easy cash or compensation flights.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

“A mate and I had come back from a seven-day hunting safari and it was pretty full on from 5am to 10pm each day so we were pretty tired when we got on the flight,” he said."

So he had a long day slaughtering innocent animals for pleasure. :thumbdown:

What a tough gig for him. Pass me the tiniest violin.

I call it good karma.

 

[PaulST]

I just love that he's not *actually* switching carriers. He's just *considering* switching carriers.

But prepared to take them to court.

Bizarre.

Well he's obviously spent a lot of time and money building his status with QF! You wouldn't want to loose that!

 

[TheRealTMA]

So he had a long day slaughtering innocent animals for pleasure. :thumbdown:

What a tough gig for him. Pass me the tiniest violin.

I call it good karma.

I wonder if he has a new paleo diet based on self-killed animals that will cure cancer which he plans to promote the cook book and TV series when the case gets to the door or the court or on Current Affair?