Finnair Fiasco from 2016

[SOPOOR]

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.

what I find odd/illogical from a laymans person with common sense, is how can one be pursued for fees that ifdelayed said they would absorb/risk. Like in most business situations here, finnair should become a creditor to idelayed's bankruptcy.

but what would i know!

 

[AFF Editor]

what I find odd/illogical from a laymans person with common sense, is how can one be pursued for fees that ifdelayed said they would absorb/risk. Like in most business situations here, finnair should become a creditor to idelayed's bankruptcy.

but what would i know!

This is how it was explained to me by someone who is familiar with this case and an expert in Finnish law:

According to Finnish law and somewhat in every continental legal system the law surpasses any contracts that might be contradicting the law itself. Finnish law regarding the litigation process is very clear: All co-plaintiffs are commonly held in charge of litigation costs.

In this case Ifdelayed had made a bi-lateral commitment towards it’s customers to be responsible in covering these costs. That commitment was valid and legally effective. Unfortunately since Ifdelayed went bankrupt there was no source where to recover these costs. Thus De facto the only plaintiffs that were operational at this point were the clients themselves. Legally and practically the most effective way for the Respondent to cover it’s litigation costs was to demand them directly from the last standing co-plaintiffs that were the customers themselves.

 

[SOPOOR]

This is how it was explained to me by someone who is familiar with this case and an expert in Finnish law:

so i guess it could go both ways, if the client went bankrupt for a NON - no win no fee, situation, the lawyer could be stuck with both sides legal fees

 

[SandyS]

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.

"It could be the lengthy layover...." It was. There's no "could be" about it.

Finland is in the EU, yes, but for whatever legal reason, that neither you nor I am familiar with, Finnair didn't need to abide by the same judgement that applied to all the other Europeans.
Nicnet may be better able to answer that.

 

[PLM]

"It could be the lengthy layover...." It was. There's no "could be" about it.

Finland is in the EU, yes, but for whatever legal reason, that neither you nor I am familiar with, Finnair didn't need to abide by the same judgement that applied to all the other Europeans.
Nicnet may be better able to answer that.

Finnish Courts are not bound by decisions made by Courts in Italy, Germany, France, etc.
The unlucky plaintiffs could have considered ignoring the demand to reimburse Finnair and let them incur the expense of trying to sue them again in Australia for the money. If you make it difficult for them they'll give up or let you settle at a fraction of the original claim.

 

[SandyS]

Finnish Courts are not bound by decisions made by Courts in Italy, Germany, France, etc.
The unlucky plaintiffs could have considered ignoring the demand to reimburse Finnair and let them incur the expense of trying to sue them again in Australia for the money. If you make it difficult for them they'll give up or let you settle at a fraction of the original claim.

That's not the legal advice I was given.
I was told they CAN (under Common Law) but its very difficult and costly for them.
So, the gamble for me is, will they do it? And they may.

 

[PLM]

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.)

It is possible to buy ATE insurance to cover against the risk of an adverse costs order.