Rats! Qantas in dispute over chewed wiring

Status
Not open for further replies.
Affair isn't the best way to describe it. They kept their relationship secret..
 
If rats where a problem it would have damaged other cars as well unless they have a exclusive taste for British Motor Vehicles.

Also note that he is doing more flights with VA then he use to do with QF.
 
Mal said:
This part is interesting.

we had an independent pest expert do a thorough investigation and they found no evidence of rats in the area," a spokesman said.

If rats were around you would be able to see the droppings and scent trails that they leave.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly
Click to expand...

No evidence of rats is not the same as evidence of no rats..

Interested to see how this turns out!
 
Kangol said:
No evidence of rats is not the same as evidence of no rats..

Interested to see how this turns out!
Click to expand...

and how exactly would you prove evidence of no rats? No evidence of rats (if a proper search is done) in my mind is pretty much the same thing.
 
harvyk said:
Who would proving probability need to rest with?
Would Mr P1 be required to prove that rats at qf parking where the sole cause and it could not have been rats at any other location before a case would proceed, or would qf need to prove that they did not have any rats there full stop, and if a rat was found it is probable enough that it could have happened there?
Click to expand...

FWIW anybody can commence litigation, with or without any merit. All it takes is that person to prepare an originating doucment (eg Statement of Claim or SoC), file the said document at a court registry (and pay the prescibed filing fee) and serve an original court sealed copy upon the defendant/s.

Generally speaking, the burden is on Mr P1, as plaintiff and person initiating proceedings, to prove his claim. His claim will generally be what is expressed in what is in his SoC and it is up to the defendant/s (QF in this case) to respond to his claim, usually by way of filing a defence response within the prescribed court times. There are court rules and time limits for different matters which parties to a proceeding must adhere to.

From what I read QF lawyers believes Mr P1's to be far fetched that they have suggested his case to have no merit, suggested to him to withdraw his claim, and if he does not, they are prepared to go to a hearing where they believe they will succeed anyway, and then seek a costs order against Mr P1.

I am inclined to think that Mr P1 believes he has little prospects for success, and because of increased media thrashing of QF lately, is trying to use the media and a bit of publicity to hopefully force QF to settle out of court. QF lawyers are smarter than that, they have information which we aren't privvy to, that makes them believe their case will be succesful [and besides IMO if Joe and Jane Public aren't falling for 'OMG rat infestation story' since most do not rely/ use QF valet for their travels anyway, then QF sees this as not 'that bad of publicity' and is more than prepared wait and go to trial].
 
There probably wont be much sympathy for damage to his Aston Martin given the challenges people face in the current economy...
 
the real issue here is...WHERE WAS 'TODAY TONIGHT'?? i'm relying on one of their 'reporters' to be chasing 'said rats' out of qf valet with microphone in hand asking "where you responsible for this"??? :lol:
 
AMEX Velocity Platinum Card Benefits
Australia's highest-earning Velocity Frequent Flyer credit card: Offer expires: 30 Apr 2025
- Earn 100,000 bonus Velocity Points
- Get unlimited Virgin Australia Lounge access
- Enjoy a complimentary return Virgin Australia domestic flight each year

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

simongr said:
There probably wont be much sympathy for damage to his Aston Martin given the challenges people face in the current economy...
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Rule No.1 in getting the public onside when you're battling a corporate: Don't mention the Aston Martin.

Rule No.2: don't mention the numerous expensive overseas holidays you take.

Rule No.3: don't mention the fact that you pay for your Aston Martin and swanky holidays via your job as a liquidator.

I think Qantas could endear themselves to the public by taking this guy on in court. It normally goes the other way, but I suspect in this instance public sympathy may well be with the Red Roo, and not Aston Martin Guy.
 
nlagalle said:
Affair isn't the best way to describe it. They kept their relationship secret..
Click to expand...

I am with nlagalle on this one, perhaps it would be better to describe as a "relationship" which apparently is public knowledge since Melb cup.
 
EmilyHoward said:
The most shocking piece of this thread is about Olivia Wirth IMO!
Click to expand...
True - Paul is definitely batting out of his league there.

MG_1581P-Howes.jpeg



061752-dispute.jpg
 
It's espionage. AWU sent Paul to find out what's going at Qantas and Qantas sent Olivia to find out what the AWU are up to

Sounds like a great movie!

:lol:
 
saw the rat story, hard one to get up really.........

where else did he park his car?

His GF may have rats?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

Total: 282 (members: 10, guests: 272)
Back
Top