Beavis - Court of Appeal - Consumer's Association

HO87

Marktheshark wrote: »

As the barrister for Mr Beavis sounds to have done a Frozen rabbit in the headlights impersonation, I would say a ruddy good job by CA on pulling the first judge up by his reins.

Given that the CA did not address the court during the hearing apart from their written submission I'm not too sure how they can be assessed as having "[pulled] the first judge up by his reins"?

If you are relying on the Prankster's blog for drawing the conclusion that Beavis's QC did a frozen rabbit impression then I think the far better aspect of the PP's account is what Jonathan Kirk (PE's QC) later stumbled into by describing their charges as penalties. That elicited distinct giggles and sniggers. Far more of an "event" than having to stop and think about a reply to a question IMO.

waamo

Firstly just to be pedantic Julia Smith isn't a QC. She is a very capable lawyer but not a QC. Mr Beavis was represented by Mr Hossain who is a QC.

In saying that the submission by Julia Smith is IMHO excellent. As good, if not better, than any QC could offer. They are clear, concise and have relevant precedent.

Ivor_Pecheque

Parking Eye tried to fine me.....oh hang on a minute, that's what it looked like when it came through the letter box, but it seems on closer inspection, they are trying to "charge" me.

Marktheshark

For me the fact the QC had top be instructed on the Judges point about disabled spots sounded an alert that he has not "done his homework".
He also appears to have failed to point out the legal failings of the first judge in misinterpreting the law.
Julia Smith has pulled this straight from the hat in this written submission and laid it on the table, qualifications do not make a good brief, the bottle to have a go does.
I feel her points are very well made.

bazster

Marktheshark wrote: »

For me the fact the QC had top be instructed on the Judges point about disabled spots sounded an alert that he has not "done his homework".
He also appears to have failed to point out the legal failings of the first judge in misinterpreting the law.
Julia Smith has pulled this straight from the hat in this written submission and laid it on the table, qualifications do not make a good brief, the bottle to have a go does.
I feel her points are very well made.

The whys and wherefores of parking management were not supposed to be to the agenda, the appeal was supposed to be on the sole point of law as to whether a penalty could be commercially justified. The judges took it "off piste".

As I understand it the QC was thoroughly on top of the legal issues that he rightly believed to be the matter of the appeal.

Marktheshark

bazster wrote: »

The whys and wherefores of parking management were not supposed to be to the agenda, the appeal was supposed to be on the sole point of law as to whether a penalty could be commercially justified. The judges took it "off piste".

As I understand it the QC was thoroughly on top of the legal issues that he rightly believed to be the matter of the appeal.

Unfortunately they ended up on the agenda, luckily someone sitting close by had a sharp elbow ready.

alfax

Bargepole, thanks for the useful link to the written argument by Which

Do you have a link to the written submissions by the parties to the action?

bargepole

Hossain's original skeleton on behalf of the Appellant: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7o8fuzjejpgmd98/Hossain%20Skeleton%20Final.docx?dl=0


Kirk's skeleton on behalf of the Respondent:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7w5fqdhafz51bb/Kirk%27s%20Skeleton%20Argument.pdf?dl=0


Hossain's supplementary skeleton in response to above: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5ck2g482k9uxfv/Hossain%20supplemental%20skeleton.docx?dl=0


Everyone needs to read these thoroughly. There'll be a test later ...

bod1467

bargepole wrote: »

There'll be a test later ...

The answer is 42.

Castle

bargepole wrote: »

Everyone needs to read these thoroughly. There'll be a test later ...

Is there a two hour time limit or can we ask for extra time?