Carnival Australia faces class action by cruisers

[woodyren]

If the passengers win do they have to tip the lawyers ?:D

 

What is the dress code for the court appearance?

 

Can you go into court early and place a towel on a good seat and return after lunch.

Edited April 5, 2016 by woodyren

[GUT2407]

If the passengers win do they have to tip the lawyers ?:D

 

Sort of.

 

If it is a no win no fee agreement (and I believe it is) that will pay more than if they ponied the money in the first place.

Edited April 5, 2016 by GUT2407

[GUT2407]

If the passengers win do they have to tip the lawyers ?:D

 

What is the dress code for the court appearance?

 

Can you go into court early and place a towel on a good seat and return after lunch.

 

Dress code surely is gown and maybe wig.

[Brisbane41]

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

 

"CRUISE CONTRACT".

 

That is why there is a class action. They appear to be alleging Carnival breached it with prior knowledge as I read it.

 

On the other topic of costs the whole idea of the law was to be accessible to the people. It is kind of one sided when only big businesses can afford to control the courts and who can take legal action.

[MicCanberra]

Dress codes, tipping and Chogs (get the popcorn) in a thread with a class action. just entertaining.:D

[The_Big_M]

That is why there is a class action. They appear to be alleging Carnival breached it with prior knowledge as I read it.

 

On the other topic of costs the whole idea of the law was to be accessible to the people. It is kind of one sided when only big businesses can afford to control the courts and who can take legal action.

 

The problem is when you make it free/low cost, you always get those who exploit.

 

As with the law, the issue is finding the balance, not allowing either side to have all the power.

[MicCanberra]

The problem is when you make it free/low cost, you always get those who exploit.

 

As with the law, the issue is finding the balance, not allowing either side to have all the power.

 

Agreed, when it costs nothing, people will go along for the ride. They will need to put their money behind their argument if they want to pursue the issue and I think quite a few will drop out.

[dougo in oz]

Clearly, everyone has an opinion on this issue but it's always interesting to me that the first thing many posters write about is that

 

(1) the people on this sailing are whingers

(2) the people involved in the class action are only after money

(3) the alleged $150 OBC is very satisfactory and as one poster noted surely would go a long way to buying some warm clothes !

(4) the alleged 20% discount on a future cruise was satisfactory

(5) the funding for the court case.

 

First of all - everyone on every ship has a different take on what on board life was like for them in terms of food, entertainment, overall experience.

 

Why would all of the passengers involved in the class action have the same view as those on this forum who weren't on that fateful cruise ? Quite simply they wouldn't.

 

Secondly - although compensation comes down to money - it's not always the main driver.

 

In this case, it's about not getting anything like the itinerary they contracted to buy ... and yes, I am fully aware of the T&C and how the company can and does make changes to itinerary due to weather, unrest etc.

 

It's about consumer law - we all benefit from that whether we buy a cruise, a car, or a meal. If we don't get what we pay for, we are under law, entitled to seek re-imbursement or replacement etc ... no different for a cruise.

 

What we don't know is what officers and crew was said to individuals on the cruise about the cyclone - this could well come out in court and there maybe some clues in individuals affidavits.

 

Thirdly, $150 OBC ... hardly compensation if the passengers can't take it with them. Yes it may amount to several drinks - maybe 9 cocktails - but it wouldn't buy much in terms of warmer clothes in one of the on board boutiques.

 

Fourthly, I'm no lawyer, but my dealings with Fair Trading about a disastrous holiday several years ago where I was offered $250 towards a future holiday (1% of the amount I actually paid) was noted by the tribunal as not composition for losses as I might never use that company again and that only cash reimbursement is considered compensation (in my case).

 

Fifthly, my understanding is that the funding of the case is done independently such as through a litigation funding agreement where the "funder" underwrites the cost and (may) indemnify the lawyer acting for the litigants. I know in one other class action before the Supreme Court of NSW, if successful the Funder will retain a % of the amount award and the rest will go to the claimants. I would be surprised if the "funder" does not offset some of the risk much like insurance companies do.

 

IME, Carnival won't want this matter to go to court - they don't want the publicity - they will try to settle or possibly go to Mediation however that can be very costly and is a cost both parties have to bear. Carnival are IMO unlikely to offer litigants all of the damages they seek (e.g. cost to travel to Sydney, accommodation in Sydney pre-cruise and cost of the cruise) so really, what choice do these passengers have but to proceed?

 

T&C that the passengers had to agree to before boarding can change the itinerary at any time, however the consumer rights of passengers cannot be written off and must never be written off.

 

If this means that passengers feel compelled to challenge the way an itinerary was changed, and if it results in new processes for the company to follow when weather can have a such a significant impact on the itinerary, then hopefully that will be a good thing for all passengers.

 

The website of the Supreme Court of NSW has details of claims lodged there ... go to the "home" tab, scroll down, look for "Class Actions", click on that and you can see a few listed on the left hand side including Carnival and a European River Cruise.

 

The class action for Carnival has not advanced to the same stage as the European River Cruise action - which I believe has up to 2,000 people included in that action - that Hearing starts today.

[GUT2407]

 

Fifthly, my understanding is that the funding of the case is done independently such as through a litigation funding agreement where the "funder" underwrites the cost and (may) indemnify the lawyer acting for the litigants. I know in one other class action before the Supreme Court of NSW, if successful the Funder will retain a % of the amount award and the rest will go to the claimants. I would be surprised if the "funder" does not offset some of the risk much like insurance companies do.

 

Problem is, that on the application for security for costs the lead Plaintiff share that they were unable to get funding from litigation lenders.

[Cyrix400]

Interesting class action details (to do with the river cruise ) in the newspaper today - link below.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/class-action-against-against-scenic-tours-over-european-river-cruises-20160426-goez9y.html

 

(I did not see the latest post in this thread before posing another thread here, with an extract from the story:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com.au/showthread.php?t=2348568

[Pushka]

One couple paid $26k? Life savings (mmm). Yikes these river cruises are expensive.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Pushka

[Aussieflyer]

Not sure about the life savings, Pushka, but the Royal Panorama Suite is $14,790 pp for the 15 day Budapest to Amsterdam in October 2017 cruise on Scenic. Yep, can be expensive.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Aussieflyer

[Swissmiss6253]

That sort of money would easily be a holiday of a lifetime for many. It is out of the reach of many.

[Pushka]

Not sure about the life savings, Pushka, but the Royal Panorama Suite is $14,790 pp for the 15 day Budapest to Amsterdam in October 2017 cruise on Scenic. Yep, can be expensive.

 

 

My brother and SIL are doing a Viking Cruise in July - Basel to Amsterdam. I know some excursions are included and they have a drinks package (SIL doesnt drink so brother not allowed to drink much either - pleased to say this is not genetic) and they are paying in the teens! I dont get it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[dougo in oz]

Interesting class action details (to do with the river cruise ) in the newspaper today - link below.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/class-action-against-against-scenic-tours-over-european-river-cruises-20160426-goez9y.html

 

(I did not see the latest post in this thread before posing another thread here, with an extract from the story:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com.au/showthread.php?t=2348568

 

That class action relates to a thread started by Marty on CC

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1892421

[GUT2407]

I have reason to believe that this may have settled.

[mrs and mrs]

Most (some/many) cruise contracts have differing rules about canceling depending in the number of Ports to be varied, as I understand it (and I am be wrong) had these passengers been told in advance (the important word being in advance) that the entire itinerary was to change, they would have been able to cancel without any penalty and receive a FULL refund.

 

The argument is that the co knew tha this was th case, didn't tell the PAX, because if they did there would have been mass cancellations resulting in a near empty ship.

 

To b frank I see some major evidentiary hurdles for the Plaintiffs and suspect they are looking for a quick settlement.

 

Evidentiary hurdles

 

1. Prove the ship knew in advance.

 

This shouldn't be hard one way or the other, weather forecasts for he area at rainouts times, the route the ship took after passing through the heads, discovery of communications between the ship and co.

 

2. Prove people would have cancelled

 

This will be hard. The line will be able to show what % of capacity she sailed at and what is the minimum % to make a no-loss cruise, unless the plaintiffs can prove that there would have been sufficient cancellations to make the cruise a loss, I think they have a problem.

 

Also why didn't they leave the ship at first Port.

 

Then... Damages. What they paid less what they got, plus any extra expenses incurred.

 

I said once before I doubt this matter will see a Court room.

 

The Plaintiffs will be keen to settle.

 

The line won't want the negative publicity.

 

Probably a credit towards a future cruise or maybe some OBC.

 

Bingo, tap, tap, next plantiff please,

[mrs and mrs]

If it does even get off the ground , we will end up paying for it all in the higher prices Carnival will charge. It wont cost Carnival anything......they will just pass it on to you and I.;)

 

 

ingo again, but they will fight tooth and nail, not to set a precedent

[GUT2407]

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.

 

If it has settled, as I believe it has.

 

Just call me a prophet.

 

They got their order for security for costs.

 

Looks like it has settled.

 

I hope to have solid confirmation that it has settled in the next week or so.

[GUT2407]

But of course if it has settled we'll never know the outcome. Who paid who what.

[Port Power]

But of course if it has settled we'll never know the outcome. Who paid who what.

Thanks for keeping us informed. It has been interesting, especially in case we have to go after NCL for our promised refund when taking up their option of cancelling our Norwegian Star cruise.

[MicCanberra]

Thanks for keeping us informed. It has been interesting, especially in case we have to go after NCL for our promised refund when taking up their option of cancelling our Norwegian Star cruise.

I think you would have a much stronger case as you would/should have the paperwork saying that they were refunding your cruise and why.

[MicCanberra]

If it has settled, as I believe it has.

 

Just call me a prophet.

 

They got their order for security for costs.

 

Looks like it has settled.

 

I hope to have solid confirmation that it has settled in the next week or so.

Knowing how the system works is your job, but if you want to be a prophet so be it. personally, I prefer to be a Profit.:p

[GUT2407]

I think you would have a much stronger case as you would/should have the paperwork saying that they were refunding your cruise and why.

Can't really see how it'd become Case if they've got it in writing.

[Port Power]

I think you would have a much stronger case as you would/should have the paperwork saying that they were refunding your cruise and why.

We do have it in writing.

 

Let's start with Fair Trading or whatever it's called these days. Hopefully NCL Corporate are just dragging their heels. Still, it is stressful and annoying having to constantly chase them up when calls and emails are not responded to after the initial "I'll look into that for you". If only there was an actual office where we could talk to an actual person face to face. (Which would happen if we lived in Sydney.)

 

Believe me, I keep ALL paperwork from initial booking until well after we return home. NEVER throw away anything or delete emails. At the least it may be needed for an insurance claim if the trip is broken because of a family emergency, etc. Now I also keep break down of prices: cruise fare, taxes & govt fees, gratuities, etc.