Ruby Princess

[NSWP]

1 minute ago, MicCanberra said:

LOL, $1.25 will at least get someone a potato scallop.

Could be a typo Mic, $1.25 billion, not $1.25. lol.

[NSWP]

3 hours ago, BRANDEE said:

The way I understand it, Susan Karpick represents all those who have filed with the class action Shine suit against Carnival Cruise.  . All except Americans and perhaps those from the UK.  Any action against anyone else (example the NSW Health), has been dropped by the Shine Lawyers.  

An insurance company is putting up the needed money and not any claimers in the law suit. It is being "advertised" as no money loss to anyone who joins.   So the lawyers get their part and the insurance company get their percent for putting up the cash.  Left is $1.25 lol  to be split with hundreds.

This info is a few months old so not sure anything has changed.

Is the above fair dinkum, the matter you are talking about, re the $1.25? Or hypothetical? 

[GUT2407]

5 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Is the above fair dinkum, the matter you are talking about, re the $1.25? Or hypothetical? 

Ie once the litigation finders, experts and lawyers get their cut there will be bugger all left for the plaintiffs.

[Aus Traveller]

5 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Is the above fair dinkum, the matter you are talking about, re the $1.25? Or hypothetical? 

I took Brandee's mention of $1.25 shared among the complainants wasn't a comment to be taken literally - just meaning that there would be very little after all the costs and payments to everyone else were taken out first.

[GUT2407]

Not surprised really, it is likely to be long drawn out proceedings, and Carnival are in effect saying wow these people don’t have a leg to stand on and if we win are unlikely to be able to pay our costs.

 

the court has said yep, why should you pay out a small fortune yo defrend this is they can’t prove they can meet your costs if they lose.

 

The last case about the cruise that went to Hobart rather than the Islands when a cyclone blew up, had a similar outcome if memory serves.

[NSWP]

7 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I took Brandee's mention of $1.25 shared among the complainants wasn't a comment to be taken literally - just meaning that there would be very little after all the costs and payments to everyone else were taken out first.

Copied, but one never knows what will be left in the pot.  My friend from down here who was on Ruby and got crook is in the class action. Briefly he told me ages ago the basis for the claim was that Princess knew there were Covid cases on board on the cruise before the ill fated one and did not do much about it. Probably where the Deceptive/Misleading Conduct issue comes in - deceiving pax into believing they were coming on board a 'covid free and clean ship' so to speak.

Edited January 26, 2021 by NSWP

[GUT2407]

23 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

Both would have to put up money or surety. The applicants (Karpik) have to put up the following:

1. The applicant is to provide security for the costs of the respondents with the following amounts to be provided at the following times:
a. $1,000,000, provided within 30 days of the date of these orders;
b. $1,000,000, provided by 15 April 2021;
c. $1,000,000, provided 30 days prior to the date of service of the respondents’ expert evidence; and
d. $1,000,000, provided 30 days prior to the first day of trial.

3. The applicant deposit the sum of $30,000 into Court within 30 days of the date of these orders to be retained as further security in relation to the respondents' costs of enforcing the Deeds of Indemnity.

 

The respondent (Carnival PLC) have to put up Deeds of Indemnity backed by an insurance company.

 

The only way I could see the applicant having that sort of money (or the ability to have that level of surety), would be if there is significant funding coming from litigation investors.

No it is the applicant that needs to put up a deed to show that that insurer will pony up if needed. Carnival/Princess don’t need to put up anything.

[MicCanberra]

2 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

No it is the applicant that needs to put up a deed to show that that insurer will pony up if needed. Carnival/Princess don’t need to put up anything.

Agreed, they are the ones being sued.

[Aus Traveller]

2 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Copied, but one never knows what will be left in the pot.  My friend from down here who was on Ruby and got crook is in the class action. Briefly he told me ages ago the basis for the claim was that Princess knew there were Covid cases on board on the cruise before the ill fated one and did not do much about it. Probably where the Deception issue comes in - deceiving pax into believing they were coming on board a 'covid free and clean ship' so to speak.

Ahh. There is lies 'the rub'. No-one has been able to show that there was COVID on the previous cruise. No-one off that cruise tested positive. Although it was claimed by the lawyers that there was COVID on board that earlier cruise, it has been stated many times that there was not. This will be a difficult one for the lawyers to prove.

[Aus Traveller]

3 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

No it is the applicant that needs to put up a deed to show that that insurer will pony up if needed. Carnival/Princess don’t need to put up anything.

My previous post about Carnival/Princess putting up a Deem of Indemnity was a 'cut and paste' from the Court document.

[NSWP]

1 minute ago, Aus Traveller said:

Ahh. There is lies 'the rub'. No-one has been able to show that there was COVID on the previous cruise. No-one off that cruise tested positive. Although it was claimed by the lawyers that there was COVID on board that earlier cruise, it has been stated many times that there was not. This will be a difficult one for the lawyers to prove.

Hopefully Justice will prevail at the end of the day. I don't really care personally. But many pax so affected would be very cranky with Carnival/Princess and other Authorities too.

[NSWP]

3 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Ahh. There is lies 'the rub'. No-one has been able to show that there was COVID on the previous cruise. No-one off that cruise tested positive. Although it was claimed by the lawyers that there was COVID on board that earlier cruise, it has been stated many times that there was not. This will be a difficult one for the lawyers to prove.

Therein lies the $64 dollar question was Carnival/Princess truthful? 

[BRANDEE]

19 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Is the above fair dinkum, the matter you are talking about, re the $1.25? Or hypothetical? 

Truth..based on contact with Shiners...Originally the Shine Lawyers were going to proceed with a class action suit against Carnival and others who were responsible for the catastrophe regarding the Ruby.  That was their mission statement.  Eventually they decided to only go after Carnival.  It is a violation of your consumer law.  They promised a clean ship and a great time in their contract and did not deliver.  I questioned about not suing NSW Health and they will not.  It is now not part of their mission statement.

 

 

[Aus Traveller]

Just now, NSWP said:

Therein lies the $64 dollar question was Carnival/Princess truthful? 

It wasn't only Carnival/Princess saying there was no COVID on board the previous cruise, no passenger off that cruise tested positive.

 

I read how a passenger off a Ruby cruise in JANUARY, complained at the end of April that they were sick on that January cruise and they now believe it was COVID. Huh??? They were upset that Princess wouldn't listen to them when they complained at the end of April. But, there wasn't any COVID in the community here in January so it is unlikely it was COVID.  😁 Unless they have a positive COVID, there is no proof that it was that particular virus.

[Aus Traveller]

2 minutes ago, BRANDEE said:

Truth..based on contact with Shiners...Originally the Shine Lawyers were going to proceed with a class action suit against Carnival and others who were responsible for the catastrophe regarding the Ruby.  That was their mission statement.  Eventually they decided to only go after Carnival.  It is a violation of your consumer law.  They promised a clean ship and a great time in their contract and did not deliver.  I questioned about not suing NSW Health and they will not.  It is now not part of their mission statement.

They probably only went after Carnival because that is where the money is. They wouldn't get anything out of the NSW government as there would be various legal protections in place.

 

I don't see how anyone can promise a 'great time' on a cruise or at any other event or holiday. What might be a 'great time' for me, might not be for someone else.

 

Was the ship clean? There have been many submissions reporting that the crew were cleaning the ship constantly.

[NSWP]

5 minutes ago, BRANDEE said:

Truth..based on contact with Shiners...Originally the Shine Lawyers were going to proceed with a class action suit against Carnival and others who were responsible for the catastrophe regarding the Ruby.  That was their mission statement.  Eventually they decided to only go after Carnival.  It is a violation of your consumer law.  They promised a clean ship and a great time in their contract and did not deliver.  I questioned about not suing NSW Health and they will not.  It is now not part of their mission statement.

 

 

Thanks there you go, Carnival/Princess have a problem, could be paying out mega bucks, how many died on the ill fated cruise? How many others were sick? 

[NSWP]

1 minute ago, Aus Traveller said:

They probably only went after Carnival because that is where the money is. They wouldn't get anything out of the NSW government as there would be various legal protections in place.

 

I don't see how anyone can promise a 'great time' on a cruise or at any other event or holiday. What might be a 'great time' for me, might not be for someone else.

 

Was the ship clean? There have been many submissions reporting that the crew were cleaning the ship constantly.

The Ruby turned around at Sydney Cruise Terminal in 24 hours.

[Aus Traveller]

Just now, NSWP said:

Thanks there you go, Carnival/Princess have a problem, could be paying out mega bucks, how many died on the ill fated cruise? How many others were sick? 

I can't see that Carnival/Princess have a problem. No-one died on the cruise, although deaths are not uncommon. Hundreds (around 700 or so) became ill and several died as a result of this illness. This is very sad, but who is to blame? Unless the lawyers can prove that Princess knew that there was COVID on board (all evidence points to the contrary) and did nothing about it, I feel they will have a hard job proving their case. The best they can hope for is for the defendants to settle to stop bad PR.

[Aus Traveller]

2 minutes ago, NSWP said:

The Ruby turned around at Sydney Cruise Terminal in 24 hours.

They always arrive around 6.30 am and leave by 4pm or 8pm. On this occasion, they arrived around 2 am to disembark two ill pax, and embarkation of the new passengers was delayed while the ship was deep cleaned. They left that evening.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Aus Traveller

[BRANDEE]

3 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

They probably only went after Carnival because that is where the money is. They wouldn't get anything out of the NSW government as there would be various legal protections in place.

 

I don't see how anyone can promise a 'great time' on a cruise or at any other event or holiday. What might be a 'great time' for me, might not be for someone else.

 

Was the ship clean? There have been many submissions reporting that the crew were cleaning the ship constantly.

They are very interested in the wording of the contract..the one we all just check "I agree".  

 

[Ondine]

They will have to have proof that Carnival were aware (or should have been aware) that COVID was onboard. 

There is no way that the ship would have sailed if COVID was proved to be onboard. Princess just would not have taken the risk to their crew or passengers after what was happening onboard Diamond.

In the light of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry they will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

Probably want to settle prior to save face.  Lawyers will get the bulk of any payout.

[MicCanberra]

12 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Thanks there you go, Carnival/Princess have a problem, could be paying out mega bucks, how many died on the ill fated cruise? How many others were sick? 

No one died on the cruise.

[Chiliburn]

2 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

No one died on the cruise.

Yes there was a death.

 It was the credibility of the cruise industry.

[BRANDEE]

7 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

No one died on the cruise.

I don't know the consumer law of Australia, but the suit is not "really" someone died because of Covid...but the cruise contract promised a certain type of experience and it was not delivered.  And peopled suffered from not getting what the contract said.  That is a "watered" down version of it..but that is the angle..they did not deliver the product promised.  (as of Nov)

 

And of couse, who suffered because it was not delivered.

Edited January 26, 2021 by BRANDEE

[Aus Traveller]

14 minutes ago, Ondine said:

They will have to have proof that Carnival were aware (or should have been aware) that COVID was onboard. 

There is no way that the ship would have sailed if COVID was proved to be onboard. Princess just would not have taken the risk to their crew or passengers after what was happening onboard Diamond.

In the light of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry they will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

Probably want to settle prior to save face.  Lawyers will get the bulk of any payout.

I agree with your comment that Princess would not have taken the risk to allow pax to board to sail if they had any idea there could be COVID on board. I also agree that the lawyers will have to pull a rabbit, or more than one, out of a hat. I hope Carnival doesn't settle just to stop bad PR. There will always be people who believe the claims made, even if evidence is to the contrary.