Jetstar loses in court (to me!)

[markis10]

The filing fee in QLD is $14, not $16 as stated by the OP.

 

[QF WP]

I think everybody's position here has been stated and debated. Unless Sam I Am decides to post the details about the verdict, we are all in the dark. I'm going to ask a Solicitor friend of mine to see where (if at all) they are reported. But we must respect his decision for not posting (for whatever reason) and we could debate the possible reasons forever and waste a lot of energy. Let's move on.

I'll keep the thread open in case Sam I Am does wish to post, otherwise we'll no doubt go onto other thread and this one will fade away from our sight.

markis10 is quite correct about the filing fees (although I'm not sure when they were last changed). Hollow victory though

 

[vet]

Can anyone find the Judgment & Orders, without paying ASIC's DocImage fee, in the failed attempt to liquidate Jetstar: its mentioned in a brief company search of Jetstar Airways on www.asic.gov.au. Surely it has more reason to be on web-accessible Court records than Sam's default judgement, but to get it one must go to ASIC 's site and pay a fee.

 

[straitman]

Can anyone find the Judgment & Orders, without paying ASIC's DocImage fee, in the failed attempt to liquidate Jetstar: its mentioned in a brief company search of Jetstar Airways on www.asic.gov.au. Surely it has more reason to be on web-accessible Court records than Sam's default judgement, but to get it one must go to ASIC 's site and pay a fee.

vet,

This was/is a QLD Consumer Affairs case not a ASIC case as per your post.

 

[medhead]

Yes, Medhead, the OP wasn't directly called a liar, but BS was invoked by another poster in less than 3 hours of the origination of this thread followed by a couple of posts of similar demeaning "jocularity".

IMHO there has been a worrying pattern of new posters being "ridiculed" on this forum.

Well, yes and I was a bit surprised by the invocation of BS. Yet a post of mine was, I assume, one of the demeaning jocular (a short and jocular post, jocular in nature - to quote the minister for midnight oil) posts.

Clearly, my thought process was a bit obscure; "Shenanigans" in reference to a South Park episode in my interpretation, reflects poorly on both the invoker and the invokee. In the episode they go to a carnival and expect the Carnys to play fair!!! In forum terms - invoking BS without giving the OP a chance to supply extra information.

I'm really sorry to all for being so obscure in expressing myself and especially I apologise to the OP for offending him.

 

[MelUser]

See this decision:


Free v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2007] VCAT 1405 (27 July 2007)


- the woman in question, Elizabeth Free, sued Jetstar and was awarded $600.93.


Some would say there are better things to do with one's time ...

 

[serfty]

See this decision: ...

Yep, that decision caused JQ to change their rules to disallow name changes for these types of fares.

• http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/community/travel-news/jetstars-ticket-fee-ruled-illegal-10652.html

 

[simongr]

Well, yes and I was a bit surprised by the invocation of BS. Yet a post of mine was, I assume, one of the demeaning jocular (a short and jocular post, jocular in nature - to quote the minister for midnight oil) posts.

Clearly, my thought process was a bit obscure; "Shenanigans" in reference to a South Park episode in my interpretation, reflects poorly on both the invoker and the invokee. In the episode they go to a carnival and expect the Carnys to play fair!!! In forum terms - invoking BS without giving the OP a chance to supply extra information.

I'm really sorry to all for being so obscure in expressing myself and especially I apologise to the OP for offending him.

Wow that is obscure. I recall the jist of the ep - but had not made that connection that the shenaneganisers were the ones at fault...

 

[oz_mark]

Yep, that decision caused JQ to change their rules to disallow name changes for these types of fares.

Indeed, the real outcome of this case.

 

[munitalP]

Wow that is obscure. I recall the jist of the ep - but had not made that connection that the shenaneganisers were the ones at fault...

Ahh, but who was at fault then... Was the ball too large for the hole, or was the hole too small for the ball!

A lawyers field day

Mr!

 

[Platy]

Clearly, my thought process was a bit obscure; "Shenanigans" in reference to a South Park episode in my interpretation, reflects poorly on both the invoker and the invokee. In the episode they go to a carnival and expect the Carnys to play fair!!! In forum terms - invoking BS without giving the OP a chance to supply extra information.

Ah, thanks, Medhead, for the explanation! Methinks I need to watch more South Park!

 

[medhead]

Wow that is obscure. I recall the jist of the ep - but had not made that connection that the shenaneganisers were the ones at fault...

shenaneganisers are equally at fault IMO. I certainly don't think that carnys are as pure as the driven snow....