The Beavis Decision

BenefitMaster

andy_foster wrote: »

N.B. A clause can be called a penalty by the parties but still be enforceable, not just because it is commercially justified in an individually negotiated contract, but if its true purpose is not predominantly to deter breach

And of course there are statutory penalties which can be applied, as found in the Late Payment of Commercial Debt Regulations, but again only apply in commercial contracts, not consumer ones.,

jkdd77

Coupon-mad wrote: »

In this discussion you were 'up against' Andy Foster and bargepole who were the team acting as reps for the defendants, so they heard it all from the horse's mouth.
I tend to think he did but I also read that he said (up front) that he was trying to present a case so that defences could be struck out in future! Not claims, defences!:(

I also note from the Prankster's blog that HHJ Maloney immediately suspected that internet posters or others linked to the defendant were behind the hoax call and threatened the culprit with jail. This is notwithstanding that:
1) PE had everything to gain from a postponement, more specifically, in obtaining the services of their preferred barrister, who was unavailable at the time of the originally scheduled hearing;
2) The defendants had nothing to gain, and were put to considerable extra hassle and expense as a result, and;
3) When it turned out that the hoax caller was not linked to the defendant, or to internet forums, the authorities demonstrated an extraordinary lack of inclination to prosecute.

bazster

jkdd77 wrote: »

If the Prankster is indeed correct, then I wonder whether it might be worth applying to the CoA for leave to add additional grounds of appeal?

AIUI whether a PPC is principal or not is a matter of construction based on the facts, not a point of law, so whilst Mr. Beavis might prefer to have more appeal points it wouldn't alter the legal position, and might indeed detract by giving the CoA grounds for deciding the appeal without deciding the penalty/commercial justification issue.