Aquila non capit muscās - The eagle does not catch flies |
Aquila non capit muscās - The eagle does not catch flies |
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 20:17
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 17 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,988 |
I recall reading somewhere about an argument that can be used in court to object to a request from a losing Claimant for the right to appeal. Needless to say, although I thought I had bookmarked it, I can't find the article now.
The argument was based on the relative low value of a parking charge claim related to the cost of an appeal hearing, viz. de minimis non curat lex - "The law does not concern itself with trifles." The article also explained how to ask for related costs. Can anyone point me to this article? I'm not even sure it was on Pepipoo; it might have been on Parking Prankster. Thanks. ________ Interloper |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 20:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 21:31
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Beavis went all the way to the Supreme Court over £175 I believe it was.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 21:43
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 17 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,988 |
Beavis went all the way to the Supreme Court over £175 I believe it was. It was £185 and it introduced the concept of commercial justification. Update: Actually, the initial parking charge notice was for £85. I've no idea what the final figure was after the various court hearings, although ParkingEye apparently waived their legal costs. ________ Interloper This post has been edited by Interloper: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:02 |
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 22:23
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Beavis went all the way to the Supreme Court over £175 I believe it was. It was £185 and it introduced the concept of commercial justification. ________ Interloper The Court of Appeal might disagree with you there. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 22:45
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I recall reading somewhere about an argument that can be used in court to object to a request from a losing Claimant for the right to appeal. Needless to say, although I thought I had bookmarked it, I can't find the article now. I don't see how you can have a generic "anti-appeal" argument without first knowing on what basis the claimant is seeking permission to appeal?? Is this about a real case? -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 08:47
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 17 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,988 |
The Court of Appeal might disagree with you there. In what particular respect? Would you care to expand? Update: Are you referring to the fact that although the concept of commercial justification was introduced, the Court of Appeal did not rule on it and instead ruled that ParkingEye’s charges should not be treated as penalties because the level of charge was not ‘extravagant and unconscionable’? ________ Interloper This post has been edited by Interloper: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:07 |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 08:51
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
Beavis went all the way to the Supreme Court over £175 I believe it was. It was £185 and it introduced the concept of commercial justification. ________ Interloper Not even as much as that. All that was at play (money-wise) was £85. |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:45
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 17 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,988 |
I don't see how you can have a generic "anti-appeal" argument without first knowing on what basis the claimant is seeking permission to appeal?? Is this about a real case? This was not about a real case. From memory, this was an article specifically about fighting parking charge notices and was basically guidance on objecting to a losing Claimant's request to appeal. The argument definitely focused on the relative low value of a parking 'fine' related to the cost of an appeal hearing. I was so sure that I had bookmarked this article.... ________ Interloper |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 10:37
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The Court of Appeal might disagree with you there. In what particular respect? Well, commercial justification seems to have been in the mind of the court in both Cine Bes Filmcilik ve Yapimcilik v United International Pictures in 2004 and Murray v Leisureplay plc in 2005, so it can hardly be said that this case introduced the concept. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:35
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 17 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,988 |
Well, commercial justification seems to have been in the mind of the court in both Cine Bes Filmcilik ve Yapimcilik v United International Pictures in 2004 and Murray v Leisureplay plc in 2005, so it can hardly be said that this case introduced the concept. Ah, I see. Thanks. I didn't research further back than ParkingEye v Beavis ________ Interloper |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:36
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
The Court of Appeal might disagree with you there. In what particular respect? Well, commercial justification seems to have been in the mind of the court in both Cine Bes Filmcilik ve Yapimcilik v United International Pictures in 2004 and Murray v Leisureplay plc in 2005, so it can hardly be said that this case introduced the concept. In the first case the clause was held to be commercially justifiable provided that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach. In the second case a sum equal to one year’s gross salary, pension contributions and other benefits in kind was held not to be a penalty as it while generous it was not extravagant or unconscionable. -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:48
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
In the first case the clause was held to be commercially justifiable provided that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach. In the second case a sum equal to one year’s gross salary, pension contributions and other benefits in kind was held not to be a penalty as it while generous it was not extravagant or unconscionable. Ok... -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 12:51
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
Well, commercial justification seems to have been in the mind of the court in both Cine Bes Filmcilik ve Yapimcilik v United International Pictures in 2004 and Murray v Leisureplay plc in 2005, so it can hardly be said that this case introduced the concept. Ah, I see. Thanks. I didn't research further back than ParkingEye v Beavis ________ Interloper Nor it seems did you do great research on Beavis QUOTE 27. Colman J’s approach was approved by Mance LJ, delivering the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal in Cine Bes Filmcilik ve Yapimcilik v United International Pictures [2004] 1 CLC 401, para 13. A similar view was taken by Arden LJ in Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] IRLR 946, para 54, where she posed the question QUOTE 141. Lord Radcliffe’s comment has been quoted with approval in the Court of Appeal in Cine Bes Filmcilik ve Yapimcilik v United International Pictures [2004] 1 CLC 401 and again in Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] EWCA Civ 963, [2005] IRLR 946, paras 47 and 109 QUOTE 150. In Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] EWCA Civ 963, [2005] IRLR 946, a later Court of Appeal (Arden, Clarke and Buxton LJJ) agreed with the approach taken in Lordsvale and Cine Bes, with Clarke and Buxton LJJ stressing the importance of the commercial context QUOTE 224. The Court of Appeal again considered the penalty doctrine in Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] IRLR 946, QUOTE 223. The Court of Appeal in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik v United International Pictures [2004] 1 CLC 401 supported Colman J’s approach. Mance LJ, who produced the leading judgment, recognised (at para 15) that there were clauses which might operate on breach and which were commercially justifiable but which did not fall into either category of a dichotomy between a genuine preestimate of damages and a penalty. |
|
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 16:32
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,640 Joined: 30 May 2013 Member No.: 62,328 |
I think there has been a case of a leaseholder [judge] that the management company to court, not over parking.
When the claimant lost and asked for permission to appeal the Judge refused reasoning: the management company had no assets, the defendant would have to pay a proportion of her costs as service charges, along with the other leaseholders and more again if the management company appealed and then lost again. I also think it may have been a First tier tribunal. Edit to add a fail link https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-70...-1-5m-flat.html although that was not the blog I had originally read. This post has been edited by Albert Ross: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 21:05 -------------------- The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:21 |