Cambridge Super-Case

halibut2209

Report on the morning session here

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/cambridge-report-morning-session.html

BenefitMaster

torontoboy45 wrote: »

Yes. Good call, baz.

Still surprised that this was held in 'secret'.

It wasn't.

The people involved and a few of the accessories knew the date. It was publicly heard.

bazster

My favourite argument concerning unenforceable contractual penalties: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

"HHJ Moloney stated that if a charge looked like a penalty, quacked like a penalty and swam like a penalty, then it was probably a penalty. "

Good man, Moloney, good man!

liseylou

bazster wrote: »

My favourite argument concerning unenforceable contractual penalties: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

"HHJ Moloney stated that if a charge looked like a penalty, quacked like a penalty and swam like a penalty, then it was probably a penalty. "

Good man, Moloney, good man!

Good reading!! Lets keep our fingers crossed in favour of the defendants.

trisontana

Afternoon session now on Pranky's blog:-

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/cambridge-report-afternoon-session.html

ampersand

Mmm, had a read last night and note PP has several concerns.

Thoughts?

e.g. 'Feverish activity had obviously gone on with regard to this during the break, and ParkingEye had come up with a copy of their 2012/13 accounts'...''
I see this must be permissible or HJH Moloney would not have allowed their consideration, but 'The Prankster also tips his hat to Mr Kirk's deft insertion of the 2012/13 accounts (year end, August) into the proceedings.' and subsequent para.s encapsulate very real potential worries.

Earlier, I had been mining BA Pension Fund records as far as an unconnected party could[?s can be raised there too]

Stroma

I think he's worrying too much myself, he's added on a lot of his concerns from the initial blog he posted

4consumerrights

ampersand wrote: »

Mmm, had a read last night and note PP has several concerns.

Thoughts?

plenty of thoughts - but unwise to speculate until judgment has been received.

pustit

HHJ.

Definitely not a Half-Hearted Judgement.

but from what Parking Prankster has mentioned as his "concerns" we might end up with a compromise Halfway-House Judgement

bazster

Don't see the relevance of PE's profits myself. Even if they made a loss it was certainly their intention to make a profit (they're not a charity) rather than simply recover losses, and in any case the vast bulk of their costs arise from pursuing losses that never existed before they started pursuing them i.e. the old circular argument: the charge is £85, because that's what it costs us to pursue the charge.