The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is taking its appeal against the not-guilty ruling in the Travel Republic case to the Supreme Court, despite industry figures urging the watchdog to drop the case.
These are the same industry figures, who would rather not have to offer an Atol licence as consumer protection.
“The CAA view on this case remains unchanged after taking leading counsel advice and therefore agrees with the Divisional Court that the issue in this case remains a matter of public interest. Seeking certainty for consumers and clarity for industry are the overriding reasons for the CAA’s decision.”
The CAA has filed an application with the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the High Court’s decision and a decision is expected by the end of the summer.
But Christian Cull, communications director for Thomson and First Choice Holidays is quoted as saying: Regarding the original vardict.
“Travel Republic insist they don’t sell packages, but if something looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. “We are incredibly disappointed that the courts have not recognised this.
The Association of ATOL Companies described the decision as a major step backwards in the battle for consumer protection.
“Regrettably this opens the door to more consumers wrongly believing they are protected when they are not.
What this means is this, if you book with an Atol bonded company and your abroad and things go wrong you will be flown home after you Finnish your holiday..
In simple terms if you you book with a non atol company then your on your own…
The High Court upheld the Magistrates Court’s decision to rule in favour of the online travel agency last year. The CAA had taken action against Travel Republic over an alleged breach of the Atol regulations.
The CAA said in a statement: “Although the Divisional Court upheld the decision of the Magistrates Court, it readily certified that this case concerns a point of law, which is of general public importance.
