New transcript available. ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

one should never attach that much importance to these county court rulings

But it isn't about precedent, it is simply about showing logically that the contract isn't readily understandable or is genuinely ambiguous.

The judge was quite clear though that he wasn't letting any concept of "reasonable interpretation" near that wording.

salmosalaris

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Perhaps it was preparing the ground to get them declared a vexatious litigant?

This will not happen

spacey2012

The "higher court" are bound by case law, so that will never happen.
Plenty of case law on unlawful penalties.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

salmosalaris wrote: »

This will not happen

Bear in mind that they are going to have to answer for contempt of court. They have just been told to roll back very many judgements. I would not underestimate how big the trouble that they are in. If it turns out that several hundred cases they have been involved in were based on deceit and the grounds were frivolous it would seem to be the least painful course of action they can expect. If the courts realise that there was a pattern of deliberate deceit then they face really serious consequences - contempt of court is a great way to get a really serious punishment.

For other readers - being labelled a Vexatious Litigant basically means that they can only bring cases with the permission of the court, they lose their right to begin proceedings automatically.