We wrote to Easyjet, explaining that we had done everything right – got the gate at the earliest time they specified, obeyed all instructions and even appealed to staff for assistance, but still we missed the flight due to the queues. So we thought it was Easyjet’s fault, and we should be reimbursed for the cost of our replacement flights. However, Easyjet took no responsibility and claimed it was our responsibility to get to the gate on time – regardless of the length of the queues.
We ended up filing a Small Claim against them at Edinburgh Sherriff Court. We received valuable assistance throughout from the in-court Citizen’s Advice Service, particularly thanks to Ms. Eilidh Barnes.
Easyjet argued that the case should be heard in Luton rather than Edinburgh… convenient for them, but putting us at great disadvantage. We wondered if “Scotland’s Largest Airline” really thought it right that their millions of Scottish customers had no recourse to law in Scotland? Or was it just a cynical attempt to put a barrier between us and justice?
We therefore had to first of all establish that Edinburgh Sherriff Court had jurisdiction over the case. This took a whole day of complex legal argument in court, where I represented myself, drawing on information gathered from mainly late-night Internet searches on the Montreal Protocol, and case law from around the world. Easyjet insisted that the case should be heard in Luton, because that is where their “place of business” is (despite the fact that we bought the flights on the high street in an Edinburgh travel agent). Or Gatwick, because that is where our “destination” was (despite the fact that we were due to connect by Easyjet in Gatwick with a flight back to our original departure point of Edinburgh).
After 6 hours, the Sherriff finally ruled in our favour – but this only set the stage for yet another day in court to hear the original case.
On 30 September we met Easyjet lawyers again, again representing ourselves, for another whole day in front of the Sherrif. We claimed that we were “denied boarding” under EU law, because we complied with all the requirements of the airline and yet they failed to accept us for carriage. Easyjet denied responsibility, blaming the delays on “government procedures outside of their control”. Easyjet also claimed that “denied boarding” only applied in cases where the airline actively decided to prevent someone from getting on the plane - which didn’t happen here. Easyjet claimed that their Terms and Conditions state that it is our responsibility alone to get to the gate on time.
To support their case, Easyjet submitted "evidence" in the form of a statment from their lawyer, Nick Nicholas. Surprisingly, given that Easyjet operate daily flights from Luton to Edinburgh, Nick couldn't be bothered to make a personal appearance. He claimed in his submission that Easyjet has no control over the security operation at Catania airport as it is Government responsibility. As it was impossible to cross examine this "witness", the Sheriff gave it the weight it deserved - zero.
In any case, I was able to establish that the security service is actually provided by a private company (SAC) – with whom Easyjet of course had a contract. It seemed that Nick Nicholas had been economical with the truth, and that Easyjet did have control of and responsibility for their subcontractor’s performance. I also established that Easyjet’s provision of staff on the day was inadequate for the volume of passengers due to drop bags, and that they failed to help us even once it was obvious that we would miss the flight without their assistance through the queues. I established failures of both resourcing decisions, and of management on the day.
We ended up filing a Small Claim against them at Edinburgh Sherriff Court. We received valuable assistance throughout from the in-court Citizen’s Advice Service, particularly thanks to Ms. Eilidh Barnes.
Easyjet argued that the case should be heard in Luton rather than Edinburgh… convenient for them, but putting us at great disadvantage. We wondered if “Scotland’s Largest Airline” really thought it right that their millions of Scottish customers had no recourse to law in Scotland? Or was it just a cynical attempt to put a barrier between us and justice?
We therefore had to first of all establish that Edinburgh Sherriff Court had jurisdiction over the case. This took a whole day of complex legal argument in court, where I represented myself, drawing on information gathered from mainly late-night Internet searches on the Montreal Protocol, and case law from around the world. Easyjet insisted that the case should be heard in Luton, because that is where their “place of business” is (despite the fact that we bought the flights on the high street in an Edinburgh travel agent). Or Gatwick, because that is where our “destination” was (despite the fact that we were due to connect by Easyjet in Gatwick with a flight back to our original departure point of Edinburgh).
After 6 hours, the Sherriff finally ruled in our favour – but this only set the stage for yet another day in court to hear the original case.
On 30 September we met Easyjet lawyers again, again representing ourselves, for another whole day in front of the Sherrif. We claimed that we were “denied boarding” under EU law, because we complied with all the requirements of the airline and yet they failed to accept us for carriage. Easyjet denied responsibility, blaming the delays on “government procedures outside of their control”. Easyjet also claimed that “denied boarding” only applied in cases where the airline actively decided to prevent someone from getting on the plane - which didn’t happen here. Easyjet claimed that their Terms and Conditions state that it is our responsibility alone to get to the gate on time.
To support their case, Easyjet submitted "evidence" in the form of a statment from their lawyer, Nick Nicholas. Surprisingly, given that Easyjet operate daily flights from Luton to Edinburgh, Nick couldn't be bothered to make a personal appearance. He claimed in his submission that Easyjet has no control over the security operation at Catania airport as it is Government responsibility. As it was impossible to cross examine this "witness", the Sheriff gave it the weight it deserved - zero.
In any case, I was able to establish that the security service is actually provided by a private company (SAC) – with whom Easyjet of course had a contract. It seemed that Nick Nicholas had been economical with the truth, and that Easyjet did have control of and responsibility for their subcontractor’s performance. I also established that Easyjet’s provision of staff on the day was inadequate for the volume of passengers due to drop bags, and that they failed to help us even once it was obvious that we would miss the flight without their assistance through the queues. I established failures of both resourcing decisions, and of management on the day.