ParkingEye DEFEATED in Court today

bod1467

My understanding is that small claims court cases do not set a legal precedent. Only High court (or higher) rulings can do so.

That doesn't mean they can't be used as supporting materials of course, but just not as case law.

Hovite_2

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Agree to a degree, but it's the latest case and therefore can be quoted as a legal precedent. My understanding is that it is now case law, until a similar case comes up that quashes the statement with a point of legal fact. Perhaps Daisy can confirm either way.

Wasn't this Small Claims Court ? If so then there's no legal precedent. You can use it as an example but the judge doesn't have to follow the case and precedent.

HO87

Again I would add a note of caution. Bargepole's notes appear detailed and one sincerely hopes that the published judgment lives up to that detail but until such time as that is produced - and we have a transcript to go with it - little use is going to be made of it.

A decision in the county court does indeed set no precedent but may be persuasive of judges in other county courts. That is why a transcript will be useful. Unlike those from PE who blithely quote cases and, as has already be said, cherry-pick quotes from them to suit their argument quotes from this case will be supported by the full transcript. Like the other cases referred to by bargepole.

Fortunately, we have been able to comment on the case before the likes of the Maily Dail get their hands on it. This is not a "landmark" case and wil not "bring PPC World crashing down". It actually represents little more than a skirmish as the case was not in reality heard but rather pronounced upon by Judge Jenkins. That said, few plans survive contact with the enemy and PE would be wise to adjust their battle plans.

On a side note I am pleased to say that I predicted the likely involvement of multi-nationals in the buying up/formation of PPC's over a year ago. They will have been attracted by the sheer volume of cash - coming straight off the streets - and the profit margin. Why should we concern ourselves? Crapita's success rate is hardly stunning and one might even argue that the degree of Crapita's involvement in running aspects of the DVLA might not create something of a conflict of interests?

Strange how serendipity plays with things isn't it? Mr Larda - PE's representative in the case - mistakenly identified his clients as Private Eye and it was the same satirical magazine who came up with the corruption of Capita's name, when they seemed to fail at all of those once rich government contracts, and called them Crapita. A name that has stuck for many years now and one I sincerely hope will stick here. So, PE aka Crapita?

Hovite_2

HO87 wrote: »

Strange how serendipity plays with things isn't it? Mr Larda - PE's representative in the case - mistakenly identified his clients as Private Eye and it was the same satirical magazine who came up with the corruption of Capita's name, when they seemed to fail at all of those once rich government contracts, and called them Crapita. A name that has stuck for many years now and one I sincerely hope will stick here. So, PE aka Crapita?

I wish I shared you confidence on the Capita front ! Remember the CEO is close friends with many current and ex-cabinet ministers.

Guys_Dad

Re the last 3 posts - I agree completely. It isn't a precedent - regrettably.

I think the judge got the right verdict, but by a route that was totally incorrect and misguided. Blew a hole completely in contract law (between landowner and agent) without studying contract.

Wish he had given Bargepole a chance to air his defence, but a good result for client, although shame they missed out on costs through mix-up.

mo786uk

"the Judge said he wasn’t interested in hearsay about cases which happened in other courts, he was only concerned with this claim in this court."

bizarre - surely the judge has a duty to ensure he is applying precedent 9if they exist) regardless of whether the solcitors provide them or not.

trisontana

You can't set precedents in the Small Claims Court.

mo786uk

trisontana wrote: »

You can't set precedents in the Small Claims Court.

I know - I thought he was talking about other cases (i.e higher courts) rather that other SCC cases.

bargepole

The defendant has now received the written Judgment, as follows:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ffihdeq9ugqekwu/Court%20Judgment.jpg

Umkomaas

Interesting statement from the Judge in the context of an appeal:

'..... contractual arrangements that the Claimant may have with a third party does not as a matter of law entitle them to bring claims of this nature, in their own name .....'

That's got to be a quote in any future POPLA appeals and any court defences.