My Witness Statement is due

ElParque wrote: »

As far as exhibits go, should I still enclose the POPLA 2015

Yes

the photos of my kids driving licences,

No

the car park sign

No, you're holding them to strict proof re signage

and other items I was going to add not included in your above work or am I now, (on your advice) just going for the keeper liability and abandoning the other defence of poorly worded signs? This was my original thought, ie that this defence needed no other point except the keeper liability one but I added the other stuff when respected posters suggested I throw the kitchen sink at it!

You have got signage in your defence but best not go into it too much in your WS as you are focussing on 'no keeper liability' and 'no reasonable presumption' which are strong arguments and should ensure you win this case.

As an RK who was not the driver you won't know much about the signs as you weren't there to see them. Going on about non prominent signs incapable of forming a contract in a WS may invite questions from the judge along the lines of "how do you know if you weren't there?"

You've got the Cutts case in your defence so if you feel things aren't going well on the day you can bring the signage up...

"Sir, I'd like to discuss point #?? of my defence which highlights the woefully inept and incomprehnsible nature of the claimants signage. If the court is minded to believe that on the BoP I was the driver then the defendant submits that the claimants signage is incapable of forming a contract for the following reasons......"

To be honest, if I don't win on the keeper liability, I can't see me having the stomach for a fight on the signage and though I'm not complacent, how on earth can I lose on the keeper liability?

By having a grumpy old codger who doesn't understand the finer points of PoFA (believing that Beavis overrides everything) and who's just got out of bed on the wrong side.

You need one who is freshly spanked and brandied up, with a silly smile on his face!

ElParque wrote: »

In which case, don't I need to have a good answer to Beavis in my defence?

I would say so. It's standard advice in most cases, whether a POPLA appeal or a court defence. Whether you can dissuade an old grump from a set-in-stone position is all part of the lottery that is the small claims court.

But unless its rehearsed, you're a hostage to fortune.

Your points on Beavis are argument not something you have witnessed. So you will address it in your skeleton.

They'll also make some naff points about it in their ws so you'll be able to do a full hatchet job on it in your SA.

It's mentioned in your defence so you've got it in your arsenal. I would adduce the parking eye Beavis sign with your WS.

Btw - you have mentioned that the signs in this case we're not lit... Did the alleged contravention occur in the hours of darkness?

ElParque wrote: »

It happened on a rainy day in January at 11am.

By adduce the PE sign, do you mean include it in the exhibits or include and refer to it in the WS?

Include it in the the exhibits which you will submit with your WS. No need to mention it in your WS as you will do so in your SA.

Don't include the Beavis transcript.