PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Aquila non capit muscās - The eagle does not catch flies
Interloper
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 20:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 21:31
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,195
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Interloper
post Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 21:43
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,988



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 22:31) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post 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



QUOTE (Interloper @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 22:43) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 22:31) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 22:45
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Interloper @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 21:17) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Interloper
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 08:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,988



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 23:23) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 08:51
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE (Interloper @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 21:43) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 22:31) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Interloper
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:45
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,988



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 23:45) *
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.... sad.gif
________
Interloper
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post 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



QUOTE (Interloper @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:47) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 23:23) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Interloper
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:35
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,988



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:37) *
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 smile.gif
________
Interloper
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:36
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:37) *
QUOTE (Interloper @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:47) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 23:23) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post 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



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 12:36) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 12:51
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,825
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE (Interloper @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 12:35) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:37) *
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 smile.gif
________
Interloper



Nor it seems did you do great research on Beavis biggrin.gif

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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post 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 icon_redface.gif 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:18
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here