Appeal Dismissed by IAS - Urgent

Coupon-mad

I spotted you said 'UKPC' in a later point in defence, needs changing to UKCPM.

And here, this isn't quite right, firstly it's not an appeal, it a defence:

6.7 In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would agree to a term where parking in a place that they enjoy rights of way and easements and pay a significant rent for the privilege of peaceful enjoyment would also accept a further unknown/not agreed liability. I would suggest that a court would not accept this is reasonable and indeed my next [STRIKE]appeal[/STRIKE] defence point shows that a Senior Circuit Judge in a 2016 appeal case supports my view.

Then, because you've referred to a 'Senior Circuit Judge in a 2016 appeal case' your next point MUST be about Jopson v Homeguard, which is the only 2016 Appeal case we know of and have the transcript for. PACE v Mr N is good to cite and quote after Jopson, but PACE v Mr N is not a case heard on Appeal by a Senior Circuit Judge.

[Deleted User]

Personally (and I know I differ from others here) I don't think you need a defence that long, which adopts the "throw the kitchen sink at it" approach, but it'll do.

It occurs that there is a primary alternative argument, namely that a permit left visible on the seat was still visible through the windscreen in any event and on that basis it is denied any parking terms were breached.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh wrote: »

It occurs that there is a primary alternative argument, namely that a permit left visible on the seat was still visible through the windscreen in any event and on that basis it is denied any parking terms were breached.

True, I'd missed that and agree it should be at the start, to clarify the dispute and facts.