Finnair Fiasco from 2016

[SOPOOR]

There's nothing particularly complex about the law here. The problem is that the original IfDelayed went bankrupt. Finnair won its case and instead of IfDelayed paying all the costs, they went after the passengers who's name the case was brought. The new IfDelayed is saying 'bad luck', not our problem.

Technically Finnair can collect the debt here in Australia via the legal system. The cost of them doing so might dissuade them, but then again, it might not. Adding more cost to the OP

So hypothetically those no win no fee lawyers here , if the lawyers go bankrupt halfway or after they lose, the client can be pursued for the legal costs? If so, wow what an eye opener

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So hypothetically those no win no fee lawyers here , if the lawyers go bankrupt halfway or after they lose, the client can be pursued for the legal costs? If so, wow what an eye opener

I was wondering the same! I only looked at two of the first entries on google on how 'no win no fee' operates in Australia. They both suggest that if your case goes to court and is unsuccessful, you may be asked to pay the costs of the losing party. This is because 'no win no fee' generally relates to the fees of your lawyers - not the costs of the losing party... for example see here What Happens if I Lose my No Win No Fee Case? | Polaris Lawyers The second entry said much the same thing! (Apparently they try to settle before it gets to court, where costs are covered by each party, and your lawyer's costs will come out of the settlement.)

 

[SOPOOR]

I was wondering the same! I only looked at two of the first entries on google on how 'no win no fee' operates in Australia. They both suggest that if your case goes to court and is unsuccessful, you may be asked to pay the costs of the losing party. This is because 'no win no fee' generally relates to the fees of your lawyers - not the costs of the losing party... for example see here What Happens if I Lose my No Win No Fee Case? | Polaris Lawyers The second entry said much the same thing! (Apparently they try to settle before it gets to court, where costs are covered by each party, and your lawyer's costs will come out of the settlement.)

Thats a great link, thanks meltraveller.
I recently had to deal with a personal insurance claim, which I was thinking of getting a free lawyer but ended up using a free financial counsellor who I didn't know existed and admittedly they got me a great outcome,
So for those that don't want to go down the legal route due to risk, a financial counsellor might be a good free option

 

[RooFlyer]

Sorry, they are meant to be taken literally and seriously. Everybody today wants all for nothing and expext everything.

You want the second sentence to be taken literally and seriously?

 

[Anna]

Technically Finnair can collect the debt here in Australia via the legal system.

What are you basing this on? Do you have a precedent to cite for a foreign costs order being enforced by an Australian court?

There's some important legal differences in meaning between 'debt', 'judgment' and 'costs order'. From what I can tell from the info in this thread, which is far from the full legal facts (I'm not criticising the OP about that), Finnair seems to have obtained a Finnish costs order against the OP. Not a judgment. In Australia a judgment and a costs order are different things. Easy for me to say as I'm not the OP, but I'd be running that line if Finnair took any steps towards enforcement in Australia, as a negotiation point if nothing else.

Post automatically merged: Aug 16, 2021

I only looked at two of the first entries on google on how 'no win no fee' operates in Australia.

Duly noted that your legal research consists of 'two of the first entries on google'. Hilarious.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What are you basing this on? Do you have a precedent to cite for a foreign costs order being enforced by an Australian court?

There's some important legal differences in meaning between 'debt', 'judgment' and 'costs order'. From what I can tell from the info in this thread, which is far from the full legal facts (I'm not criticising the OP about that), Finnair seems to have obtained a Finnish costs order against the OP. Not a judgment. In Australia a judgment and a costs order are different things. Easy for me to say as I'm not the OP, but I'd be running that line if Finnair took any steps towards enforcement in Australia, as a negotiation point if nothing else.

Post automatically merged: Aug 16, 2021

Duly noted that your legal research consists of 'two of the first entries on google'. Hilarious.

I did not say it was legal research - I had the same question and wondered what the situation would be in Australia. I did not need to consult a lawyer. I did not want or need to go into detailed research as it was just a passing question. It was simply something to ask about if ever in that situation.

So the advice in the link provided - that if you proceed down the 'no win no fee' route and you lose your case at court - that you cannot be asked to pay the costs of the winning party is incorrect?

The previous discussion in this thread has indicated that while it may be difficult and costly for Finnair to chase the debt in Australia, there is an avenue for them to do so. It seems it is not without risk to simply ignore Finnair.

 

[SOPOOR]

What are you basing this on? Do you have a precedent to cite for a foreign costs order being enforced by an Australian court?

There's some important legal differences in meaning between 'debt', 'judgment' and 'costs order'. From what I can tell from the info in this thread, which is far from the full legal facts (I'm not criticising the OP about that), Finnair seems to have obtained a Finnish costs order against the OP. Not a judgment. In Australia a judgment and a costs order are different things. Easy for me to say as I'm not the OP, but I'd be running that line if Finnair took any steps towards enforcement in Australia, as a negotiation point if nothing else.

Post automatically merged: Aug 16, 2021

Duly noted that your legal research consists of 'two of the first entries on google'. Hilarious.

It's written by a lawyer on their company website so it's not gospel , but a good indicator
100x better than most advice thats written on Facebook by unqualified idiots that people seem to rely on

 

[Anna]

It's written by a lawyer on their company website so it's not gospel , but a good indicator
100x better than most advice thats written on Facebook by unqualified idiots that people seem to rely on

A good indicator of their attitude, anyway

 

[Anna]

I did not say it was legal research - I had the same question and wondered what the situation would be in Australia. I did not need to consult a lawyer. I did not want or need to go into detailed research as it was just a passing question. It was simply something to ask about if ever in that situation.

So the advice in the link provided - that if you proceed down the 'no win no fee' route and you lose your case at court - that you cannot be asked to pay the costs of the winning party is incorrect?

The previous discussion in this thread has indicated that while it may be difficult and costly for Finnair to chase the debt in Australia, there is an avenue for them to do so. It seems it is not without risk to simply ignore Finnair.

I don't care whether what you said is correct or incorrect, the fact that you call it 'advice' but your source is Google is a concern of itself. IIRC it was also you who 'advised' the OP in the original thread that 600 euros would be coming her way, or words to that effect. I think you should leave the 'advice' to the OP's solicitor, who presumably has gathered all the relevant facts and done some proper legal research.

 

[SandyS]

What are you basing this on? Do you have a precedent to cite for a foreign costs order being enforced by an Australian court?

There's some important legal differences in meaning between 'debt', 'judgment' and 'costs order'. From what I can tell from the info in this thread, which is far from the full legal facts (I'm not criticising the OP about that), Finnair seems to have obtained a Finnish costs order against the OP. Not a judgment. In Australia a judgment and a costs order are different things. Easy for me to say as I'm not the OP, but I'd be running that line if Finnair took any steps towards enforcement in Australia, as a negotiation point if nothing else.

Post automatically merged: Aug 16, 2021

Duly noted that your legal research consists of 'two of the first entries on google'. Hilarious.

​

3. Common Law Enforcement​

If parties cannot register the judgment under the FJA, and a bilateral treaty does not apply to the particular country, the judgment may be enforced under the common law. Enforcing a foreign judgment under common law commences in the same way as any other court proceedings. Determining what court to initiate proceedings in depends on various factors including the monetary amount sought and the location of assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment.

Before enforcing a foreign judgment under the common law, the Court must be satisfied that the judgment is the following:

1. Final and conclusive;
2. For a definite sum of money;
3. Parties to the Australian proceedings must be the same as the parties to the foreign judgment; and
4. The foreign court had jurisdiction over the judgment debtor.

FWIW.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I was wondering the same! I only looked at two of the first entries on google on how 'no win no fee' operates in Australia. They both suggest that if your case goes to court and is unsuccessful, you may be asked to pay the costs of the losing party. This is because 'no win no fee' generally relates to the fees of your lawyers - not the costs of the losing party... for example see here What Happens if I Lose my No Win No Fee Case? | Polaris Lawyers The second entry said much the same thing! (Apparently they try to settle before it gets to court, where costs are covered by each party, and your lawyer's costs will come out of the settlement.)

I don't care whether what you said is correct or incorrect, the fact that you call it 'advice' but your source is Google is a concern of itself. IIRC it was also you who 'advised' the OP in the original thread that 600 euros would be coming her way, or words to that effect. I think you should leave the 'advice' to the OP's solicitor, who presumably has gathered all the relevant facts and done some proper legal research.

My original post did not mention advice - it used the word 'suggests'. It was certainly something I hadn't considered when seeing firms offering 'no win no fee'. In context, the link provided advised - yes that is the correct term - to ask questions.

There are two separate issues here. One was a discussion on how 'no win no fee' works in Australia and whether the same thing could happen here that happened in Finland. The other is the issue of whether Finnair can get their costs against the OP. IIRC the OP has sought legal advice on the latter.

 

[Anna]

​

3. Common Law Enforcement​

If parties cannot register the judgment under the FJA, and a bilateral treaty does not apply to the particular country, the judgment may be enforced under the common law. Enforcing a foreign judgment under common law commences in the same way as any other court proceedings. Determining what court to initiate proceedings in depends on various factors including the monetary amount sought and the location of assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment.

Before enforcing a foreign judgment under the common law, the Court must be satisfied that the judgment is the following:

1. Final and conclusive;
2. For a definite sum of money;
3. Parties to the Australian proceedings must be the same as the parties to the foreign judgment; and
4. The foreign court had jurisdiction over the judgment debtor.

FWIW.

Yes but the point I have been making is that there is a definition of 'judgment' in the relevant Australian legislation which does not include "costs order" and in Australian law they are different things. Your lawyer is the person to advise you but it might be worth asking if s/he has considered that. Particularly as an Australian judicial officer might well be happy to entertain a loophole in the very unfortunate circs of this case. But I am not pretending to have a definitive answer, especially as I haven't seen the Finnish document/s and don't have all the facts. It's just that I can see an argument that might potentially be available to you, at least to use in negotiations if nothing else. Happy to have Australian case law cited to me to show otherwise. (Not happy to have Google cited to me )

 

[SandyS]

At the start, I asked both KPF and the Australian lawyer I spoke to, if there was a difference between Finnair chasing me for a debt or "costs order" or enforcing a judgement.

I was told they can enforce the judgement and therefore the costs. They have won their case and the right, in Australia, to the costs.

All lawyers, other than KPF who strongly advised me to pay, have said its not worth it to them financially to pursue me and to suggest a settlement.
Finnair flat out refused and told me that it was my decision to take legal action so I have to pay up, in other words, too bad, so sad.
They told me that they will most definitely pursue me and that could end up in potentially thousands of extra costs for me. The person I spoke to (the same person dealing with the other Australian family) was not interested in anyone's personal circumstances or ability to pay.

In my opinion, the person I spoke to at Finnair sounds very much like AVV, who has posted on this thread.

I do appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from flying Finnair, simply letting everyone know my experience.

Not that I will fly Finnair again but if I did, I would make sure I did not ever have a stop in Finland because in my experience, it seems you are not covered by EU law for any issues that arise.

Other passengers who suffered the same and lesser delays than we did, who did not stop in Finland, were paid compensation by Finnair because these were foreseeable and avoidable delays as judged by a court of law.

 

[Kerrodt]

At the start, I asked both KPF and the Australian lawyer I spoke to, if there was a difference between Finnair chasing me for a debt or "costs order" or enforcing a judgement.

I was told they can enforce the judgement and therefore the costs. They have won their case and the right, in Australia, to the costs.

All lawyers, other than KPF who strongly advised me to pay, have said its not worth it to them financially to pursue me and to suggest a settlement.
Finnair flat out refused and told me that it was my decision to take legal action so I have to pay up, in other words, too bad, so sad.
They told me that they will most definitely pursue me and that could end up in potentially thousands of extra costs for me. The person I spoke to (the same person dealing with the other Australian family) was not interested in anyone's personal circumstances or ability to pay.

In my opinion, the person I spoke to at Finnair sounds very much like AVV, who has posted on this thread.

I do appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from flying Finnair, simply letting everyone know my experience.

Not that I will fly Finnair again but if I did, I would make sure I did not ever have a stop in Finland because in my experience, it seems you are not covered by EU law for any issues that arise.

Other passengers who suffered the same and lesser delays than we did, who did not stop in Finland, were paid compensation by Finnair because these were foreseeable and avoidable delays as judged by a court of law.

I’ve followed this thread from the beginning and something in this last post doesn’t make sense to me.

In your last two paragraphs you talk about “not stopping in Finland”:
(a) I thought all Finnair international flights route in and out of Helsinki, so avoiding a stop in Finland seems near impossible, and
(b) what’s the difference between “stopping” and “not stopping” in Finland as it relates to this case specifically and the relevant EU law generally? I might have missed this detail somewhere upthread.

Thanks. And again, like many others, I’m sorry that you had to go through this.

 

[SandyS]

I’ve followed this thread from the beginning and something in this last post doesn’t make sense to me.

In your last two paragraphs you talk about “not stopping in Finland”:
(a) I thought all Finnair international flights route in and out of Helsinki, so avoiding a stop in Finland seems near impossible, and
(b) what’s the difference between “stopping” and “not stopping” in Finland as it relates to this case specifically and the relevant EU law generally? I might have missed this detail somewhere upthread.

Thanks. And again, like many others, I’m sorry that you had to go through this.

From memory, not all flights have to overnight in Helsinki. We did and that then meant technically, we were under Finnish rule.

If we hadn't stopped for that long, then our original departure, which in our case was Amsterdam, would come under EU law and not Finnish. And Finnair would have to pay the compensation.

Apologies if my memory is a little off, it was over 5 years ago now when I booked the flights. But for us, with our times etc I couldn't avoid the flight that involves something like a 12 hour gap in the connecting flight. It's all the one Finnair ticket, not a planned overnight stopover.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Finland is part of the EU and therefore covered by EU261. There is no difference in the regulations (as written) between a departure from anywhere in the EU or Helsinki.

It might be that there were different facts in play for the connecting passengers involved - for example if their connecting flight was delayed as well they might be entitled to compensation on grounds other than the 'extraordinary' circumstances that applied to the departure ex Finland.

 

[SandyS]

I understand Finland is part of the EU and therefore covered by EU261 but because we were in Helsinki for over 12 hours or overnight (I can't remember which) then Finnair was able to use the Finnish court system and not the EU.
Our tickets were Bangkok to Amsterdam return but some of these tickets involve a layover of 12 hours in Helsinki and for whatever reason, that's the one I booked. In fact, again apologies if my memory is incorrect, there were 2 options.
I could either book a ticket that had a 90 minute connection or a 12 hour connection. I was worried that 90 minutes was too tight so chose the "safer" option.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I wonder if it came down to where you 'checked in' for the flight to BKK? Did you get both boarding passes in AMS, or did you check in again the next day at HEL? Passengers through checked from another EU city, via HEL could likely have brought their case in their home country. Interpretations of the EU regulations can sometimes differ slightly between countries, especially if the issue is a new one.

 

[SandyS]

I wonder if it came down to where you 'checked in' for the flight to BKK? Did you get both boarding passes in AMS, or did you check in again the next day at HEL? Passengers through checked from another EU city, via HEL could likely have brought their case in their home country. Interpretations of the EU regulations can sometimes differ slightly between countries, especially if the issue is a new one.

I tried ALL of that.

All boarding passes issued in AMS.
The Finnair check in agent was reluctant to do it and said it couldn't be done but Qantas in Australia (had a great check in agent) did it all no problem on the outbound journey. So, I pushed the interline, from memory.
It comes down to having that lengthy connection in Helsinki.
I have been told by various sources, that if I'd had a shorter connection time, I could have gone through EU law because my origin was Amsterdam. And Finnair would have paid the compensation like it did for others on these A350 delayed flights.

In addition, KPF advised me it was likely the Finnish court would reduce the amount of costs we had to pay Finnair because it was not company to company, which is usually what happens. But the Finnish court didn't.

Whilst, in my opinion, Finnair have behaved atrociously, its also Insurello who have left Nicnet, myself and others, high and dry. And they are still operating calling themselves Ifdelayed, online.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

To be clear it is still EU law in Finland. But possible that the Dutch courts, or French courts (or wherever else the passengers originated) took a different view on whether compensation was payable. It could be that the lengthy layover deemed you originating in Finland that day rather than elsewhere.