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

Guys_Dad

Grimble wrote: »

Did anyone else pick up what the on what the one of the Lords said that this could be an agreement and not a contract, how would this play out?

The whole procedure from the judges was like an after dinner smoking room "I'm smarter than you" rambling discussion kind of divorced from the matter in hand.

I accept that the supreme court differs from a lower court in its remit but the judges rambled like a Ronnie Corbett monologue.

Northlakes

I think even the Law Lords struggled to understand the nature of the PE contract.

If there wasn't a contract formed how could they attempt to justify a charge of £85 for a motorist not parking in the marked bays? That's not a trespass through an overstay is it?

atilla

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The whole procedure from the judges was like an after dinner smoking room "I'm smarter than you" rambling discussion kind of divorced from the matter in hand.

I accept that the supreme court differs from a lower court in its remit but the judges rambled like a Ronnie Corbett monologue.

Yet i was quite impressed with them. Fully expected some crusty old soaks gently dozing away, yet they appeared to be on the ball, or even ahead of the game, so to speak, the whole hearing.

As for rambling, that seemed to be the preserve of Bloch, de Waal and Kirk.

mo786uk

A lot of questionning of the judges but clearly they will go away and look at everything in the round. I've followed 3 cases that have goen to the SC and the judgements that come out always appear to be well reasoned and explained quite well.

As someone else has alluded to, the standard of the barristers at a court of this level is not as relevant as it would be at a case in a lower down court.

50Twuncle

What will it cost Mr Beavis - if he loses the case ?

bazster

50Twuncle wrote: »

What will it cost Mr Beavis - if he loses the case ?

Nothing. His QC is acting pro bono and the two sides have agreed not to seek costs from each other.

Guys_Dad

50Twuncle wrote: »

What will it cost Mr Beavis - if he loses the case ?

Taking on more staff to deal with the increase in trade from his new found notoriety?

Castle

Northlakes wrote: »

I think even the Law Lords struggled to understand the nature of the PE contract.

If there wasn't a contract formed how could they attempt to justify a charge of £85 for a motorist not parking in the marked bays? That's not a trespass through an overstay is it?

Agreed;
Based on the signs who would agree to pay £85 to park outside a marked bay for less than 2 hours, when you can park free within a marked bay for the same period. I would suggest that in this instance, the £85 is extravagant and unconscionable; and furthermore, it would also seem to rule out the contractual fee argument.

What happens if you park outside the bay before you have had a chance to read the signs; have you entered a contract or are you just a trespasser?

More questions than answers at the minute.

bargepole

Castle wrote: »

...
More questions than answers at the minute.

Indeed. And this saga has highlighted the whole incongruity of private parking 'contracts' with motorists.


In a conventional contract, A agrees to supply goods or services to B, who agrees the price he will pay. Both parties enter into the contract in the expectation that it will be fulfilled. If either party breaches the terms, the other can sue for his loss.


But a parking contract (if it is held to be a contract) has to do two things; it has to appear to the landowner that motorists are deterred from breaching the terms, but from the PPC point of view they need people to be in breach, or else they have no income. So as one Judge said, it is 'bizarre', and 'a nonsense'.


So now we have seven of the most senior Judges in the land, together with three eminent QCs, discussing and debating what it all really means. How is the man on the Clapham Omnibus supposed to make sense of all this?

Northlakes

atilla wrote: »

Yet i was quite impressed with them. Fully expected some crusty old soaks gently dozing away, yet they appeared to be on the ball, or even ahead of the game, so to speak, the whole hearing.

As for rambling, that seemed to be the preserve of Bloch, de Waal and Kirk.

I think the SC has been very clever putting these two contrasting cases together.

On one hand we the Beavis case we have a contract (?) formed from an offer advertised on a distant lamp post. Yet in the Makdessi case teams of lawyers would work for months on the Share Purchase Arrangement (SPA). This would be agreed between two law firms and each party to the arrangement would have a significant amount of time to peruse all the documentation and should have agreed the lawfulness of the contract beforehand. Finally the contract document would be signed by the authorised director or owner.
I can't help but get the feeling that you can't legislate against a 'bad bargain' and the High Court was right on this occasion and the CofA got it wrong.

In the Beavis case the direction of travel for the law has been consumer protection, against a background of increased use of legal 'small print' clauses by a ever-increasing variety and type of supplier. Today’s Times stated that the Paypal T&C’s amounted to 35000 words, some of which appeared to be completely unintelligible.

In my opinion the commercial justification argument just doesn't hold water in this scenario and I think this was very well put by Christopher Butcher QC.
When reading the transcript, the arguments of Jonathon De Waal came over to me much better than the verbal account and looked well argued.

Like most of us, the Law Lords appeared to be completely baffled that a £85 penalty can be for an overstay of 5 minutes, 5 hours or even 5 days and the parking outside a marked bay putting other vehicles in breach was a corker.

A win for Barry I think because I don’t think that even the Law Lords can understand the PE business model.