Appeal Fund

HO87

Stroma wrote: »

As you know it's not just the cost of our side, maybe £5k for a qualified person with this, but it's the costs of the other side should it lose. Their costs could be 5 or 10 times that. So this may not be one to go to the appeal court.

Very true - although this is an issue, amongst the many others, that is being currently addressed.

Sorry guys, but as KIFL has posted above, until things are settled there is nothing to be said. I wouldn't want this to spur undue speculation though as that will not serve any of us well.

I understand that there will be those who will want to know how this case may impact their own, if at all, and the short answer is that at present we don't know and it would be both unwise and unhelpful to speculate further - as already said.

Please bear with us. We've only had the judgment since Monday and the 17 pages of it continue to take a lot of analysis.

Other than that it is business as usual... :cool:

Guys_Dad

We need to consider the bigger picture here. Yes it is bad for the 2people who lost. But we must not lose sight of the bigger picture.

We built this case into a major landmark, but in reality it is just a small claims case and there are lots of them already have been heard post POPLA with results going both ways.

This particular car park us different as PE actually pay for the privilege of penalising motorists and this seems to have had some influence on the judge.

So why risk having an adverse precedent set that could make POPLA reassess their generally favourable view of GPEOL? Much better to appeal on a more obvious misjudgement in the future to stand a better chance of a pro-motorist appeal upheld.

Get the thought of this being a supercase out of your heads. It is just a normal County Court case that went the other way. No more significant than McIlwaine or Jenkins or Jones cases that went our way.

Stroma

This has never been a supercase as it's to low a level, the next step should it involve a CoA would be, but if for example it went there and the motorist win , then no doubt it would go to a higher court as parking eye wouldn't let it lie IMO . That would mean we need very very deep pockets.

I can't see it going further with this case as I don't think the defence is strong enough, but I am not obviously close enough to the case to see if there is a way forward. Like everyone else I await the next step.

4consumerrights

da_rule wrote: »

I'm stealing Nodding Donkeys idea from this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4974968

You really shouldn't steal people's ideas or work DA_Rule - could lead you into a lot of trouble.....