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

bargepole

The full transcript of proceedings from Day 1 is now available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4vuob5sbcormpp/Transcript_Day1.pdf?dl=0


Around 300 pages worth. You'll need to have read it by 10:15am tomorrow, when Day 2 starts. There may be a test later.

TDA

bargepole wrote: »

The full transcript of proceedings from Day 1 is now available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4vuob5sbcormpp/Transcript_Day1.pdf?dl=0


Around 300 pages worth. You'll need to have read it by 10:15am tomorrow, when Day 2 starts. There may be a test later.

Perhaps it is just me but that link takes me to a "Discussion Points" document between a Private Parking Appeals Ltd and Ombudsman Services?

Edit: It appears to link to the correct document now.

esmerobbo

Watching it yesterday and with my very limited legal knowledge it seemed in her arguments Joanna Smith Q.C seemed to be struggling a little, and every point she made, their Lordships seemed to disagree or counter.

It also seemed although arguing for her client it wasn't doing much good for PE, as she was pressing the equal standing between two equal parties pretty hard.

Northlakes

Agreed, she really seemed to struggle.

bargepole

Latest Update: It's possible that Michael Bloch's submissions for Makdessi may be completed by lunchtime, apparently.

In which case, John de Waal QC may be invited to commence his oral arguments in today's afternoon session. BB has been told he should be there today in case that happens.

The_Slithy_Tove

salmosalaris wrote: »

Prepare for a fudge

Indeed. I suspect that those on either side who are expecting a result, "PE are 100%/0% right" will be disappointed. Any judgement is likely to be surrounded by caveats, or some points ruled for and others against.

mo786uk

Well the commercial people seem to be arguing that penalties should not apply at all to any contract or failing that commercial contracts

The Beavis people are arguing that the specific sum was a penalty and that there is no place for 'comemrcial justification' but that the penalty regieme should apply.

So either way someone will be disappointed.

bazster

mo786uk wrote: »

Well the commercial people seem to be arguing that penalties should not apply at all to any contract or failing that commercial contracts

The Beavis people are arguing that the specific sum was a penalty and that there is no place for 'comemrcial justification' but that the penalty regieme should apply.

So either way someone will be disappointed.

Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible for the judges to come to one conclusion regarding commercial contracts negotiated between legally-represented parties of equal standing, but to reach a different conclusion for one-sided, non-negotiable consumer contracts.

ColliesCarer

Has just adjourned till 2:00 pm. Bloch expects to need about another half an hour when they reconvene - so de Waal may be asked to start his oral arguments about 2:30

bargepole

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Has just adjourned till 2:00 pm. Bloch expects to need about another half an hour when they reconvene - so de Waal may be asked to start his oral arguments about 2:30

Counsel for the Consumers' Association is not present, as he wasn't expecting the case to start today.


So it's now been decided the Beavis case will start at 10:15am tomorrow.