Parking Eye Vs Barry Beavis & Martin Wardley

BenefitMaster

You might think so - I couldn't possibly comment ;-)

deflated

Miss Proverbs was definitely there as was i but i have only just found out that beavis is yet to be concluded and no, no one mentioned to her that information or that the appeal is set for febuary next year the judge couldnt get her out fast enough like she was wasting his time ,whole case contridicts anything that has gone before for years.

BenefitMaster

deflated wrote: »

Miss Proverbs was definitely there as was i but i have only just found out that beavis is yet to be concluded and no, no one mentioned to her that information or that the appeal is set for febuary next year the judge couldnt get her out fast enough like she was wasting his time ,whole case contridicts anything that has gone before for years.

In which case, it is essential that you get in touch with Parking Prankster, who has a network of people who may well be able to assist with both appealing and winning against PE. Especially if the Solicitor for PE didn't tell the judge that Beavis is at appeal.

Interest declared, I'm one of them, but don't cover Derby.

deflated

I have a feeling she might have had enough of Englands biased and crooked legal system although thats what this dreadful morally corrupt company thrives on,we will see.

deflated

Benefit master, dont suppose for legal reasons we are allowed to name and shame names of people withholding such evidence in one of our great revered courts?

hoohoo

The court is open session so you can report truthfully on the facts, which will include names and what was or was not said

Coupon-mad

You can say who the LPC rep (PE's legal person) was. They should be ashamed and the LPC should be reported to the SRA.

Such a shame neither of you thought to actually read a few forums or look into the Beavis case which would have been all over their evidence pack you got a copy of, beforehand. ANY parking forum would have told you about the Beavis Court of Appeal case in seconds - the case is famous/infamous and unsafe to rely upon because it's certainly not over. You really missed a trick, very expensive lesson (I would not blame the court if neither you nor the PLPC rep mentioned the Court of Appeal).

Ms Proverbs could write to the Judge first thing Monday, and tell them the LPC rep appears to have withheld information (spell it out, tell the Judge what you have discovered after being railroaded by PE's rep who comes from a legal firm which DOES know about the Court of Appeal situation but did not inform the Court) and as such, does the judgment stand... she will probably be ignored but in small claims anything goes, and the Judge might be !!!!ed off to hear about this...and if they get your letter before they issue the Order...

esmerobbo

Would it be to the discretion of the judge if they took into account the COA appeal?
HHJ Maloney's is an actual judgement at a higher court, the appeal has not been heard to overrule that judgement.
I can see why some judges are holding some cases, but do they have too?

However if PE are using Beavis then they should also be informing the court that although they are relying on it, it is listed for appeal. Besides which unless PE are paying for this particular car park then the commercial justification HHJ Malonoy ruled on is not relevant surely.

bargepole

esmerobbo wrote: »

Would it be to the discretion of the judge if they took into account the COA appeal?
HHJ Maloney's is an actual judgement at a higher court, the appeal has not been heard to overrule that judgement.
I can see why some judges are holding some cases, but do they have too?

However if PE are using Beavis then they should also be informing the court that although they are relying on it, it is listed for appeal. Besides which unless PE are paying for this particular car park then the commercial justification HHJ Malonoy ruled on is not relevant surely.

Moloney's original Judgment was NOT from a higher court, it was a small claims case like any other, so is not binding on other cases. The only difference is that the first instance hearing was heard by a senior Judge, so it may be regarded as persuasive.


As regards the payment PE make for that car park, it's really not much different from the common situation where a PPC pays the landowner a kickback from each paid ticket; except in this instance the 'commission' is fixed and paid upfront.


The LPC Law advocates, who are either solicitors themselves or working under the supervision of a solicitor, do have a duty to the Court, and should make the Court aware of the fact of the appeal. A Judge then has the option to hear the case on the day, and if he decides in favour of the claimant can suspend enforcement until after the appeal, or could decide to stay the matter until after the appeal has been decided.

hoohoo

HHJ Maloney is a small claim judgment, not a higher court.