"These terms are governed by the laws of England an Wales"

[R0b]

I wouldn't say the judgment is odd because like I said companies are entitled to exclude liability for consequential losses unless you can show that the exclusion is unfair and/or that the exclusion is contrary to the Misrep Act 1967, assuming you pleaded that. I can see perfectly well why the judge would have arrived at his/her decision.

None of us know what you actually pleaded and I have to say if your claim solely rested on consequential losses then it wasn't your best argument since it would have been easier arguing it being a direct loss (which is recoverable) resulting from their misrepresentation rather than a loss which is explicitly excluded in the contractual terms.

Anyway, you need to decide whether it is worth appealing the decision but an appellate court will not interfere with a judge's finding of fact unless you can show good reason why the decision should not remain as is.

I suspect you may not have pleaded your case as best you can which is possibly why you failed.

[Drew32]

I wouldn't say the judgment is odd because like I said companies are entitled to exclude liability for consequential losses unless you can show that the exclusion is unfair and/or that the exclusion is contrary to the Misrep Act 1967, assuming you pleaded that. I can see perfectly well why the judge would have arrived at his/her decision.

None of us know what you actually pleaded and I have to say if your claim solely rested on consequential losses then it wasn't your best argument since it would have been easier arguing it being a direct loss (which is recoverable) resulting from their misrepresentation rather than a loss which is explicitly excluded in the contractual terms.

Anyway, you need to decide whether it is worth appealing the decision but an appellate court will not interfere with a judge's finding of fact unless you can show good reason why the decision should not remain as is.

I suspect you may not have pleaded your case as best you can which is possibly why you failed.

The misrepresentation act is common law and I did plead negligent misrepresentation.

I also stated that the claim was not about consequential losses. I claimed that the airline were directly responsible for my call costs because of the misinformation.

If I point out that the Judge has erred by not taking these points into consideration, is that sufficient grounds for appeal?

I read online, I believe wikipedia, that in general I had a viable claim because of negligent misrepresentation and that was my claim in tort. I don't understand why a Judge would need me to spell it out in the kind of detail only a solicitor would be able to, and I don't understand how a Judge can still make such a serious error by thinking that common law can be excluded because of an exemption clause. That is surely self-evident?

[R0b]

Well, that's the thing, the Misrep Act is not common law rather it is an act of parliament. When we refer to common law, what we mean is that it is law made through court decisions and is not the same as laws made by parliament. There is a common law misrepresentation but it's typically known as negligent misstatement, and then there is negligent, fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation under the Misrep Act. So they are two different types of causes of action with different remedies and hurdles to overcome.

You may have grounds of appeal for arguing that the judge associated the expense of call costs as a consequential loss but failed to consider whether they were also a direct loss. It is well accepted that losses that may be consequential, can also be a direct loss and therefore the judge erred on that basis but you need to decide if that was the case and if there's other grounds you may be able to rely on.

Just to be clear, under common law you can exclude or limit liability. Contracts are governed by principles of common law, so if we apply your argument then basically the law would be that you can never exclude or limit liability and party to a contract must have unlimited liability because a breach of a contractual term is a breach under common law - that is clearly not the case and is absurd.

[Drew32]

Thank you R0b

[efpom]

Drew32 Would it be possible for the whole judgment to be posted up?

This judgment might be useful regarding the issue of "applicable law".
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/2955.html

[Drew32]

efpom will post asap!

[Drew32]

Drew32 Would it be possible for the whole judgment to be posted up?

This judgment might be useful regarding the issue of "applicable law".
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/2955.html

It's not lol. Jurisdiction/applicable law is not disputed.

[efpom]

The link to the judgment I provided may not be relevant to your particular mater but may be useful for others.

I note that you intend to appeal the judgment in your matter. It would be useful if you could post up the judgment that issued in your matter. It would also be useful if you post up your POC and the defence. The purpose is to see if there are, in fact, viable grounds of appeal.