Carnival Australia faces class action by cruisers

[MicCanberra]

According to documents files passengers were give $150 OBC and half price on a cruise in Spirit or Legend upto March 2016.

 

Seems more generous than originally reported, I suppose many in the action felt they couldn't take advantage of the second cruise discount.

[MicCanberra]

No, it's just a way to stop people wasting money and court time.

 

The old I'll sue the rich company and if I lose, I lose nothing. Meanwhile companies have to spend time and money which just encourages them to settle even when they're in the right - which is why people try it on.

 

If they have a valid argument then they'd be happy to back it up.

 

As per earlier points, it doesn't appear to be valid but just a case of trying it on.

 

I agree. There needs to be these type of deterrents for frivolous cases otherwise the courts will be backlogged even further.

[GUT2407]

I think that may donk this action on the head.

 

The big "Bell Ringer" for m wha when I saw that Litigation Lenders weren't interested.

[GUT2407]

Seems more generous than originally reported, I suppose many in the action felt they couldn't take advantage of the second cruise discount.

 

Seemed pretty generous to me.

[GUT2407]

I agree. There needs to be these type of deterrents for frivolous cases otherwise the courts will be backlogged even further.

 

Actually I favour more litigation :D, so long as they can afford to pay Counsel's crazy fees :eek:, I actually know the chap who appeared on the application or Carnival, wonder if he's getting pain in cruise credits :rolleyes:

[Kiwi Kruzer]

Looks like a very dirty and low legal trick by Carnival to stop the class action.

 

When companies resort to dirty tricks like that in all likelihood they think they are going to lose.

 

Actually I favour more litigation :D, so long as they can afford to pay Counsel's crazy fees :eek:, I actually know the chap who appeared on the application or Carnival, wonder if he's getting pain in cruise credits :rolleyes:

 

I dont think its fair either. There are some lawyers that are still driving last years model cars. How embarrassing for them.:eek:

Put up the cost of the cruising to the general public, make them pay pay pay for cruising and then there will be lots more lovely money to spend on legal eagles......

Carnival does not pay...We do.:mad:

 

 

[GUT2407]

I dont think its fair either. There are some lawyers that are still driving last years model cars. How embarrassing for them.:eek:

Put up the cost of the cruising to the general public, make them pay pay pay for cruising and then there will be lots more lovely money to spend on legal eagles......

Carnival does not pay...We do.:mad:

 

 

 

That's why they want security for costs, so if they win th Plaintiffs pay, the worry is that the could win and the Plaintiffs not be able to mee a costs order, hence this application.

[MicCanberra]

The big "Bell Ringer" for m wha when I saw that Litigation Lenders weren't interested.

 

Yes, if they shy away then they must think it too risky.

[Brisbane41]

No, it's just a way to stop people wasting money and court time.

 

The old I'll sue the rich company and if I lose, I lose nothing. Meanwhile companies have to spend time and money which just encourages them to settle even when they're in the right - which is why people try it on.

 

If they have a valid argument then they'd be happy to back it up.

 

As per earlier points, it doesn't appear to be valid but just a case of trying it on.

 

No offence but that is a load of BS. You talk of wasting court time and money. How can you justify a fair and equal society when court cases are out of reach of the average person who has been priced out and may have a legitimate claim.

 

The court case being in the millions is an unreasonable cost and prices the average passenger out and puts the legal system squarely in favour of big business.

 

Now I don't want to be rude but if a small time passenger has a legitimate claim against a cruise line then they should be able to take it to court and fight it out and not have to worry about the costs being in the millions.

 

Can you please explain and justify why you think a court case over a changed itinerary would take millions of dollars to fight or $600,000 to be closer. Come on this is just unreasonable.

[GUT2407]

No offence but that is a load of BS. You talk of wasting court time and money. How can you justify a fair and equal society when court cases are out of reach of the average person who has been priced out and may have a legitimate claim.

 

The court case being in the millions is an unreasonable cost and prices the average passenger out and puts the legal system squarely in favour of big business.

 

Now I don't want to be rude but if a small time passenger has a legitimate claim against a cruise line then they should be able to take it to court and fight it out and not have to worry about the costs being in the millions.

 

Can you please explain and justify why you think a court case over a changed itinerary would take millions of dollars to fight or $600,000 to be closer. Come on this is just unreasonable.

 

Possibly because of the sheer number of witness that might be called. Basically the longer the case the higher the cost. Pretty basic economics really.

[The_Big_M]

They would normally get their costs anyway if they win.

 

The problem is that invariably in cases like this the Plaintiff has no chance of meeting the costs order, so an order for security is sort and the pool of plaintiffs are offered the chance of ponying up or opting out.

 

Exactly, that's the issue.

 

As I said earlier I understand there are about 1,000 in the class action so it is only about $700 each.

 

Yes, but individually they'll

a) not all be in the position to pay (given the comments you hear from some of not having cash e.g. the complaints about on board spending be put on hold)

b) assess whether it's worth the risk - many will join when it's "free" but if they have to shell out it changes the situation, especially as they may lose it

c) lastly assess whether it's worth the return. Even if they meet a) and b), they may still think why spend (hold) $700 just for e.g. a few hundred dollars return, given they've already got a cruise credit and obc - and after whatever legal fees come about.

 

Hence I can't see it going ahead , unless someone with really deep pockets and conviction sponsors it - which is unlikely.

[GUT2407]

Exactly, that's the issue.

 

 

 

Yes, but individually they'll

a) not all be in the position to pay (given the comments you hear from some of not having cash e.g. the complaints about on board spending be put on hold)

b) assess whether it's worth the risk - many will join when it's "free" but if they have to shell out it changes the situation, especially as they may lose it

c) lastly assess whether it's worth the return. Even if they meet a) and b), they may still think why spend (hold) $700 just for e.g. a few hundred dollars return, given they've already got a cruise credit and obc - and after whatever legal fees come about.

 

Hence I can't see it going ahead , unless someone with really deep pockets and conviction sponsors it - which is unlikely.

 

A,b, and c are all correct, and if some (many) start to drop out everyone else's security will need to increase, it can become a spiral.

 

The usual deep pockets are the litigation lenders and according to Mrs DeJong's affidavit they've declined. Now if he professionals at assessing the risk v benefit say no, it old be a pretty risky step for "someone wit really deep pockets" to take that risk on. Not saying it won't happen, but I see problems ahead for the plaintiffs.

 

My bet is Carnival get heir order for security for costs, then the matter settles.

[The_Big_M]

No offence but that is a load of BS. You talk of wasting court time and money. How can you justify a fair and equal society when court cases are out of reach of the average person who has been priced out and may have a legitimate claim.

 

The court case being in the millions is an unreasonable cost and prices the average passenger out and puts the legal system squarely in favour of big business.

 

Now I don't want to be rude but if a small time passenger has a legitimate claim against a cruise line then they should be able to take it to court and fight it out and not have to worry about the costs being in the millions.

 

Can you please explain and justify why you think a court case over a changed itinerary would take millions of dollars to fight or $600,000 to be closer. Come on this is just unreasonable.

 

Love the passive/aggressive start, said ironically as well. Anyway, moving on...

 

How does your argument even relate to your question?

 

Costs orders aren't standard, and I didn't say they should be. Hence, nothing in my post even relates or justifies your challenge that "How can you justify a fair and equal society when court cases are out of reach of the average person who has been priced out and may have a legitimate claim."

 

Subsequently, you appear to be questioning the figure used, rather than the merits of the costs order or generalising as you had initially. On that point, their own lawyer would challenge them on that if the merits of its calculation were inaccurate - that's how it works. If he accepts it as is, then it means both agree as to the magnitude of costs, so it then gets back to the original principle.

[GUT2407]

I'd be interested to know if Carnival are still willing to offer a half price cruise.

[The_Big_M]

That would have been offered after the original cruise. According to the documents, the booking period has just expired.

[GUT2407]

That would have been offered after the original cruise. According to the documents, the booking period has just expired.

 

I realize the original offer was only for cruises upto March this year, I'm just wondering if hey are still prepared to offer it.

 

I know whatbid be advising them just at the moment.

[Cyrix400]

As the saying goes: "Your move."

 

;-)

No, Mrs DeJong won't be paying anything in cost security. Hers other pax cases are being handled by the lawyers on a no win- no pay basis (common in class actions) - because the legal litigation underwriter no doubt agreed to underwrite this case. So now let's see if the underwriter thinks it will be worth their while to go ahead - they must have anticipated a strong possibility of a large security for costs being required by Carnival. And lawyers' time to date would have clocked a large legal bill already.

 

And by the way, the legal underwriters are making quite good money from putting money into court class actions where they have a good chance of substantial win. Of course they loose some - but generally are ahead.

 

Interesting.....

[MicCanberra]

No offence but that is a load of BS. You talk of wasting court time and money. How can you justify a fair and equal society when court cases are out of reach of the average person who has been priced out and may have a legitimate claim.

 

The court case being in the millions is an unreasonable cost and prices the average passenger out and puts the legal system squarely in favour of big business.

 

Now I don't want to be rude but if a small time passenger has a legitimate claim against a cruise line then they should be able to take it to court and fight it out and not have to worry about the costs being in the millions.

 

Can you please explain and justify why you think a court case over a changed itinerary would take millions of dollars to fight or $600,000 to be closer. Come on this is just unreasonable.

 

That is the thing, it is not one person or couple, it is a class action.

[Russell21]

There are two words that put the class action in the garbage bin, they are

 

"CRUISE CONTRACT".

[MicCanberra]

There are two words that put the class action in the garbage bin, they are

 

"CRUISE CONTRACT".

 

Yes, but it doesn't stop some of them trying.

[lagoon380]

Also if the class action is successful but the compensation is equal or less than what has already been offered, Carnival would be awarded costs.

[GUT2407]

No, Mrs DeJong won't be paying anything in cost security. Hers other pax cases are being handled by the lawyers on a no win- no pay basis (common in class actions) - because the legal litigation underwriter no doubt agreed to underwrite this case. So now let's see if the underwriter thinks it will be worth their while to go ahead - they must have anticipated a strong possibility of a large security for costs being required by Carnival. And lawyers' time to date would have clocked a large legal bill already.

 

And by the way, the legal underwriters are making quite good money from putting money into court class actions where they have a good chance of substantial win. Of course they loose some - but generally are ahead.

 

Interesting.....

 

This has nothing to do with the Plaintiff's costs it is about securing the defendant's costs (Carnival) if they win.

[GUT2407]

There are two words that put the class action in the garbage bin, they are

 

"CRUISE CONTRACT".

 

But the issue is did Carnival withhold information tha would have let PAX ou of their contract.

[GUT2407]

Also if the class action is successful but the compensation is equal or less than what has already been offered, Carnival would be awarded costs.

 

Maybe.

 

I can't see the Court ordering a half price cruise.

 

Will Carnival offer a cash settlement?

[Mr Princess]

Ah! Time for the popcorn!

MP.