ParkingEye v Beavis at the Supreme Court: What’s Happening This Week

forgotmyname

Think someone may have a vested interest in him losing?

Guys_Dad

There was an all to brief exchange when the Beavis barrister said that if the £85 was and actual part of the contract ( a charge for parking beyond 2 hours)and not a penalty, then it would be subject to VAT and the land's use and business rates would alter.

At a later point when the Consumer Association barrister was in full flow, one of the judges asked him if a carpark had had something like "First hour Charge £x, second hour £y and subsequent hours £up to 24 £85 would that make it a penalty?" The answer was "NO. That would be clear and not a penalty. But that is not the case here"

So it comes down to "Is is a free car park with penalties" or "Is it a chargeable car park with a free period". The former means no VAT or hefty business rates - the latter incurs these. That is why we try to hit the IPC model with the VAT route and why PE don't use that model to avoid VAT and rates, but end up trying to have their cake and eat it.

Marktheshark

The Judges appeared to take every available opportunity to widen the scope outside the contract.
That does not look good, the consumer contracts throws a life line to European court.

However the upside of a loss is parking firms are greedy and indeed up will go the invoices once they have free range turkey shooting.
This will lead to huge public outcry and regulation.

marleyboy

forgotmyname wrote: »

Think someone may have a vested interest in him losing?

Just a shame they haven't thought to mention which "he" they are referring to. Regardless, I guess anyone is entitled to hope one way or the other.

daveyjp

Marktheshark wrote: »

The Judges appeared to take every available opportunity to widen the scope outside the contract.
That does not look good, the consumer contracts throws a life line to European court.

However the upside of a loss is parking firms are greedy and indeed up will go the invoices once they have free range turkey shooting.
This will lead to huge public outcry and regulation.

The last line is exactly what I was thinking. If this goes PPC way it won't take long for their to be 100x more outrage from citizens than there ever was with clamping because the system will spread onto every piece of private land you can imagine.

System

It will go the PPC ... to some extent but that is all that is needed to PE to persuade some courts. After all they used the Somerfield and Beavis cases extensively without ever mentioning both were appealed. But it is up to the defendant to counter these half-truths.

Anyway the judgement is already written and is based on this one

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0193.html

"When interpreting a written contract, the court is concerned to identify the intention of the parties by reference to "what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean""

and..

"The fact that an arrangement has worked out badly or even disastrously is not a reason for departing from the natural meaning of the language"

ie. stay here longer and you pay.

SevenTowers

For anyone who missed today's court show, it can be viewed here:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html

Not sure when today's footage will be uploaded, probably tomorrow.

Warning: Prepare for some mediocre court performances, on both sides.

Umkomaas

Warning: Prepare for some mediocre court performances, on both sides.

I thought that Joanna Smith was by far the sharpest, unfortunately on the 'wrong' side.

Just done a Google search on her. Look whose website she crops up on:

http://www.savills.co.uk/sectors/mediation/profile--joanna-smith-qc.aspx

Took me a bit by surprise - others may have already seen this.

salmosalaris

B

IamEmanresu wrote: »

It will go the PPC ... to some extent but that is all that is needed to PE to persuade some courts. After all they used the Somerfield and Beavis cases extensively without ever mentioning both were appealed. But it is up to the defendant to counter these half-truths.

Anyway the judgement is already written and is based on this one

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0193.html

"When interpreting a written contract, the court is concerned to identify the intention of the parties by reference to "what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean""

and..

"The fact that an arrangement has worked out badly or even disastrously is not a reason for departing from the natural meaning of the language"

ie. stay here longer and you pay.

bang on or is it ?
doomed from the start or not ?
the judiciary trying to suggest/ contrive a legally supportable model throughout ? But this is the Supreme Court not a bunch of DDJ's so one presumes they want to get it right
trebles all round
cigar m'lord ?

mo786uk

It is possible of course that the SC overrules the CoA and says no such thing as 'commercial justification' and we are just back to where we were - that being each case is looked at on a case by case basis to see whether it is a penalty.