ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

Hot_Bring

That account of the proceedings doesn't fill me with much hope to be honest. These QCs are paid huge bucks and Mr Bevis' seemed wholey unprepared for any questions. I think I could have probably done a better job !!!

bazster

Mr. Beavis' QC wasn't paid anything for this job.

The judges erred in considering the details of parking management at all. The sole point of appeal was supposed to be "commercial justification", a point of law.

The_Slithy_Tove

bazster wrote: »

The judges erred in considering the details of parking management at all. The sole point of appeal was supposed to be "commercial justification", a point of law.

I would hope and expect that their judgement will ultimately be based on points of law. After all, that's their job. It's up to the politicians to unravel the outcome of application of the law, and it's their (the politicians') fault that application of a law results in a mess in the first place.

Ivor_Pecheque

I have a theory, please feel free to shoot it down. I 'aint legally trained, in fact the only time I've ever had contact with the legal system, was when Parking Eye forced me to.

There seems to be such a "sway" of public opinion, that this thing isn't going to go away. It seems that whenever you switch the goggle box on, there is someone, somewhere who has fallen foul of Parking Eye and the such.

No matter what the outcome of PE vs Beavis, (and power to your elbow Mr Beavis), I wonder if statute will eventually overtake any Judge made decisions ?

Guys_Dad

Zeroing in on the main appeal point - as I see it - does commercial justification override the point that a charge that is a penalty (as HHJ Maloney admitted) is not currently permitted in law. This was the grounds that HHJ Maloney allowed the appeal on and. This is, in fact, the potential law changer that the Consumer Association were worried about in a wider context outside parking and why they got involved.

From the reports I have read of the CoA, this central point was not stuck to by the Beavis batrrister. (I wasn't there so can't be 100% sure of that)

I believe it was George Carman, one of the great QCs, that advised clients to answer only what is asked and not to open up any other points in their testimony to give the other side something to probe at. That being the case, then Mr Beavis brief should not have needed the whole morning to make his case and enter into the wider areas of parking, which he may have lacked the expertise in.

Still, the judges are still out and we await their verdict.

bazster

AIUI (and I wasn't there either) it wasn't Mr. Beavis' QC who widened the proceedings, it was the judges themselves.

bargepole

bazster wrote: »

AIUI (and I wasn't there either) it wasn't Mr. Beavis' QC who widened the proceedings, it was the judges themselves.

I was there, and this is correct.


The Judges seemed far more interested in the contractual issues than they were in the substantive question of whether penalties can be commercially justified.


At least two of the three seemed quite clear that PE had evidenced no loss, and expressed doubts about whether PE had any standing to bring a claim at all.


So we may get a judgment that goes back to what Judge Jenkins said at Brentford nearly 18 months ago.

forgotmyname

Are they back in court again today? What happens next?

Marktheshark

What does stand out is they appear to have got hold of the principle and agent argument and decided PE are neither but a "contractor" thus offering a licence to park.
If that carries through, which we know is the 100% truth of how they operate, then it will be game over on that point outright.

bazster

forgotmyname wrote: »

Are they back in court again today? What happens next?

No, it's over. We now wait (weeks) for judgment to be handed down.