-
MATHER Pursuer against (FIRST) EASYJET AIRLINE COMPANY LIMITED and (SECOND) DRK HAMBURG MEDISERVICE gGmbH, ] The pursuer (“Mr Mather”) was born on 7 June 1965. The first defender (“easyJet ”) is a company, of an airport at which easyJet operates”. [4] Mr Mather boarded the aircraft in Edinburgh with assistance, ] In this action Mr Mather sues easyJet for the loss, injury and damage which he sustained as a result, for Mr Mather [6] It is asserted in the first instance that the solicitors acting for easyJet
-
in the reclaiming motion in the cause COLIN MATHER Pursuer and First Respondent against (FIRST) EASYJET AIRLINE, seek determinations on the incidence of expenses following easyJet’s unsuccessful reclaiming motion, that the pursuer is entitled to his expenses, both in the Inner and Outer Houses, from easyJet. All parties, House, these should be payable by easyJet either by an award in DRK’s favour against easyJet, . First, easyJet maintain that their liability in expenses to DRK, however structured, should
-
motion in the cause COLIN MATHER Pursuer and First Respondent against (FIRST) EASYJET AIRLINE, the responsibilities of the airport and the airline in terms of the PRM Regulation. She regarded easyJet’s, by the terms of the Montreal Convention (Abnett v British Airways 1997 SC (HL) 26; El Al Israel Airlines v, Worldwide Flight Services 111 F Supp 2d 501 (2000); Carroll v United Airlines 325 NJ Super 353 (1999, the application of that balance could leave a pursuer without a remedy (El Al Israel Airlines v Tseng