A Summary of the Beavis Case

bazster

TDA wrote: »

The CoA clearly disagrees and I would be wholly unsurprised to see the SC uphold their judgment.

Obviously the CoA disagrees, that's my point: it was actually none of their business and it amounts to judicial activism. As for the SC, we'll have to wait and see.

TDA wrote: »

Acting like it's a purely private matter is disingenuous, when clearly it affects a huge amount of the public on an almost daily basis.

Lots of things affect a huge amount of the public on a daily basis. The price of a pint of milk for example. That may be an issue of public policy that Parliament may want to stick its nose into but it's not the business of the courts.

Like clamping. It wasn't the courts wot banned it, it was Parliament, because Parliament is the correct forum for matters of public policy.

TDA wrote: »

This isn't about a private contractual dispute between two parties. If it was, no one here would give a toss.

Yes we would, because it will affect lots of other people in similar private contractual disputes. The fact that something affects lots of people doesn't necessarily make it a matter of public policy, and even if it did the legislature is the place for it to be addressed, not the courts.

Northlakes

Let's face it and put it simply, the CofA had before them a belligerent person (who just happened to be a motorist) who wouldn't pay up.
(The experts here would have easily have got him off had he started in the right place.)

The law states punishment is the order of the day for anyone who doesn't conform. The defence was wrong footed, the judges then fire off in all directions moving off the legal rights of way into a bog.

Mr Beavis, in reality, was a victim of a vehicular 'honey trap' i.e. money being paid to the landowner for 'fishing rights' and the reduction in the parking period. PE defended their hierarchical position very well also those of the poor pensioners in the BA pension fund.

The SC will now have to get the case back onto the path it should have been on and take a far more balanced view of the implications of the judgement.

nigelbb

Northlakes wrote: »

Let's face it and put it simply, the CofA had before them a belligerent person (who just happened to be a motorist) who wouldn't pay a bill.

The Beavis case was not a great one to take to the Court of Appeal in the first place & it's unfortunate that it ever happened. The Riverside car park is a rare one that needs management to avoid abuse (not that ANPR & tickets for overstaying is the right way to manage that abuse).

There was never a claim in any of the hearings that Barry was a 'genuine shopper' who had simply lost track of time while spending 2 hours 56 minutes wandering round Staples & Brantano & Sports Direct before eating in MacDonalds I think that we are entitled to draw the conclusion that he had in fact parked up & then gone elsewhere in Chelmsford town centre. He was in fact exactly the sort of motorist that PE were engaged to deter.

TDA

bargepole wrote: »

It wasn't the courts, it was Parliament who outlawed clamping in England & Wales.

Exactly, that was my point. It's interesting that the courts did not feel they could intervene on matters of public policy (instead leaving it to Parliament) for clamping, but do feel they can for ticketing.

bazster wrote: »

Lots of things affect a huge amount of the public on a daily basis. The price of a pint of milk for example. That may be an issue of public policy that Parliament may want to stick its nose into but it's not the business of the courts.

This notion that the courts don't consider matters of public policy is simply incorrect. It's been a huge force in governing the development of all sorts of case law, most notably in tort.

In contract it's been less pronounced, but there are still clear examples of policy being considered. See the development of promissory estoppel to prevent individuals resiling from promises relied on in good faith; and the categorisation of contracts that oust the jurisdiction of the court; strike at the institution of marriage; impede parental duties; or restrain trade as against public policy.

You may view it as judicial activism but if you don't think judges should ever be able to consider public policy perhaps you should lobby Parliament to legislate to prevent just that, because at the moment it looks like they don't have any problem with the courts doing so.

If the courts just 'applied the law to the facts', with no room for development through case law, part payment could never discharge a debt, performance of an existing contractual obligation would never amount to good consideration, false statements of future intention could never amount to an actionable misrepresentation, etc.

Exceptions exist in case law for a number of reasons, one of which is judicial consideration of public policy. That's just the reality we live in.

There's a difference between interpreting existing law against a backdrop of public policy, and true judicial activism such as, for instance, in Re S and Re W. The SC may very well feel the CoA got the interpretation wrong, but I will be surprised if they suggest that they overstepped the boundary into legislating from the bench.

bazster

Case law can develop without judges sticking their noses into things that don't concern them except as to the contractual issues. Such as, for instance, the effectiveness or otherwise of the arrangements private companies make for the parking of private motor vehicles on their property.

If you look at the development of the doctrine of penalties in commercial contracts it has proceeded without public policy issues being considered. Thus, if a business will potentially suffer losses on breach which can't be directly attributed to the breach a claim for such losses can now be characterised as commercially justifiable. That's got nothing to do with public policy, it's simply equitable.

You are conflating all sorts of things with public policy that just aren't.

TDA

bazster wrote: »

Case law can develop without judges sticking their noses into things that don't concern them except as to the contractual issues. Such as, for instance, the effectiveness or otherwise of the arrangements private companies make for the parking of private motor vehicles on their property.

If you look at the development of the doctrine of penalties in commercial contracts it has proceeded without public policy issues being considered. Thus, if a business will potentially suffer losses on breach which can't be directly attributed to the breach a claim for such losses can now be characterised as commercially justifiable. That's got nothing to do with public policy, it's simply equitable.

That's because there haven't been public policy issues to consider. All the previous authorities on penalties have concerned multi-million pound clauses in contracts between businesses. Whether or not a liquidated damages clause is enforceable in that context does not affect the public at large.

Clearly, whether a parking charge that reflects no actual loss can be enforced is a matter that affects the public at large, and the judiciary clearly feels that there is a public utility in such charges being enforceable.

The fact that you disagree that it is for the public benefit (on a side note, I hope counsel for Mr Beavis has more than a majority straw poll of retail units at Chelmsford as evidence) does not mean public policy has no place in the discussion. It just means that you don't agree that it is of public benefit on the facts.

Counsel for both sides will need to focus on public policy considerations to succeed at the SC, because public policy IS relevant here

bazster wrote:

You are conflating all sorts of things with public policy that just aren't.

For all those examples that I listed, with the exception of promissory estoppel, the courts have specifically identified public policy as a key factor in their decisions, so no, I'm not.

carandbike

hoohoo wrote: »

The reduction in time only came to light after the hearing, and so was never presented as evidence to the judges.

Really? !!!

I got a pcn cancelled by the management agents of Riverside two years ago. I posted on here for advice. I was told by every shop manager that I visited, to complain to and ask for help, that they wanted the three hour limit reinstated. I'm sure I mentioned it on here too.

So two years ago I knew the name of the person at the Savilles that was responsible for Riverside. The date of her summer holiday, as I had to wait for her to get back, the previous time limit, that shops there have a means of getting pcn's cancelled and even taken off the system before a pcn is issued (white listing). The name of someone at Chelmsford council that would deal with planning permission at the site, that she too had a pcn from there and paid it, that they do not deem "security cctv cameras" as needing permission, even though arguably, anpr cameras run by PE do not aid security in any way. Oh and if it's relevant, that she doesn't know if PE pay any business taxes to the local council.

Now if I managed to find out those minor pieces of information in a few weeks of panic before PE took me to court, why the hell couldn't a barrister (albeit pro bono), with months of preparation time, not have that information to hand?

bazster

carandbike wrote: »

The name of someone at Chelmsford council that would deal with planning permission at the site, that she too had a pcn from there and paid it, that they do not deem "security cctv cameras" as needing permission, even though arguably, anpr cameras run by PE do not aid security in any way.

It's not the cameras that need permission, it's the pole they are on top of!

DCodd

TDA wrote: »

Counsel for both sides will need to focus on public policy considerations to succeed at the SC, because public policy IS relevant here



For all those examples that I listed, with the exception of promissory estoppel, the courts have specifically identified public policy as a key factor in their decisions, so no, I'm not.

Can there really be public policy within a commercial contract though? Surely there would have to be public accountability too for there to be any true public policy considerations.

Most public policy issues within commercial contracts are governed by a publically accountable authority are they not?