POPLA statement on their position re Beavis and Supreme Court Appeal

ColliesCarer

Prankster blog yesterday

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/barry-beavis-chooses-john-de-waal-qc.html

Quentin

Statement here:


http://popla.org.uk/London%20Councils/StatementbytheLeadAdjudicatorofPOPLA07May2015.pdf

Marktheshark

If they apply law that was not applicable at the time of the parking event they would be open to a judicial review.

enfield_freddy

by the time the new case is given a court date , the company doing the POPLA appeals will be long gone and replaced by the new company


sounds a bit like ATOS heathcare , treading water until the contract is finished

TDA

Marktheshark wrote: »

If they apply law that was not applicable at the time of the parking event they would be open to a judicial review.

In what way are you suggesting they would be applying law that was 'not applicable at the time of the parking event'?

stator

TDA wrote: »

In what way are you suggesting they would be applying law that was 'not applicable at the time of the parking event'?

He is saying that the judges created new law with their decision at the court of appeals. The laws they created didn't exist with any parking claim before their judgement, so one couldn't be expected to be held to it.

Captain_Krunch

stator wrote: »

He is saying that the judges created new law with their decision at the court of appeals. The laws they created didn't exist with any parking claim before their judgement, so one couldn't be expected to be held to it.

So why stay the cases at POPLA or the courts if the new ruling will have no relevance those cases?

enfield_freddy

maybe the courts could see what a sham the COA result was


POPLa , what do they care v, easy life , only a few mths to go now , before retirement (of the name)*






*London councils

Quentin

stator wrote: »

He is saying that the judges created new law with their decision at the court of appeals. The laws they created didn't exist with any parking claim before their judgement, so one couldn't be expected to be held to it.

But there have been no laws "created" by the judges - (who don't create laws anyway!)

HO87

Quentin wrote: »

But there have been no laws "created" by the judges - (who don't create laws anyway!)

I foresee much splitting of semantic hairs but as contract law is based almost entirely on case law (precedent, in other words) which, like it or not, is law "created" by judges - indeed it is frequently known as judge-made law. The description is thus hardly off-base.

Case law, precedent or judge-made law (call it what you will) might not create statute but that does not diminish the impact or influence such decisions have.

This is based on the assumption that the imprecise use of the word "laws" was intended as an alternative for statute i.e. Acts of Parliament, Statutory Instruments etc.

Quentin

HO87 wrote: »

I foresee much splitting of semantic hairs ......

You never seen the bullying way all mentions of the word "fine" are dealt with by the semantic pedants here?