Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

Castle

IamEmanresu wrote: »

There is the issue of why costs were bounced into it, as the underlying cases were for £20 a ticket.

Was this the discounted value or the full value; because at £20 per ticket, it wouldn't be cost effective for INDIGO to go to POPLA.

System

Full value.

What happened the previous year was that WH/ZZPS issued mass claims. The unions got involved and the tickets were [supposedly] wiped. The tariff was reduced to £20 and £10 for early payment.

Some continued as if nothing had changed and picked up more tickets so unions this time round don't appear to have wanted to get involved a second time.

Going forward it still costs more for Indigo at POPLA to appeal but AFAIK, ZZPS who were handling the Indigo appeals didn't appear to issue POPLA codes - but I will stand corrected if they did.

Dr_Crypto

Umkomaas wrote: »

That’s not exactly what I said. You’ve capitalised NJ, mine was deliberately in lower case. You’ve also selectively quoted, so here’s the full paragraph.


Natural (or perhaps more so ‘moral’) justice could have been provided by their employer in ensuring this court case did not get to this stage for their staff (who in their Investors in People application they would surely have described as ‘their most important asset’); it could have been provided for by their TU backing them up with real professional legal assistance (even if it was to say ‘don’t bother, pay up); it could have been provided by Carwyn Jones as the Labour Party’s leader and the Principality’s First Minister, by not casting them adrift by his inopportune remarks about an accident being caused by parking at the hospital.

So I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make, or perhaps score?

Natural Justice has a specific meaning and breach of it could render a decision unsafe - Ridge v Baldwin etc.

Morals are a totally different thing. It stands to reason thatbyhe losing party in a case will feel the decision was unfair or even immoral but that can’t automatically render it unsound or be grounds for an appeal.

Dr_Crypto

IamEmanresu wrote: »

It wasn't highly technical. Why do you think a few bits on paper on a screen, a couple of signs here and there, and bits of paint on the ground is "highly technical".

And as the issue of the value of the ticket, that was settled by the Beavis case a long time go.

There is the issue of why costs were bounced into it, as the underlying cases were for £20 a ticket.

They were attempting to run a case which would require the defence to show why Beavis didn’t apply. That’s not easy. Reading the Judgements it appears the Judge was really quite !!!!ed off with the whole thing.

Lamilad

They were attempting to run a case which would require the defence to show why Beavis didn’t apply. That’s not easy.

Are you being serious? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

A complete novice could distinguish a case from Beavis after 10 minutes of reading threads on this forum.


How is it "not easy" to see that Beavis was a retail car park with limited free parking where there was a commercial interest for the landowner to ensure there was a regular turnover of vehicles.

And that the signage was ample, clear and prominent enough to form a contract.

And that Mr Beavis admitted being the driver who exceeded the license to park for free.

And that the PPC had fully complied with their ATA CoP.

How is it "not easy" to see that this case is nothing like Beavis and that the precedent set by the SC would only apply to other cases where the circumstances were the same or very similar

Coupon-mad

They were attempting to run a case

It seems that someone was attempting to do something, just perhaps not what you said.

Barry Beavis did his best. This is not about failure to do something. Read the links. What do you think caused 100% costs?

henrik777

One huge problem in litigation is that people assume the burden of proof is a huge hurdle that only claimants need to meet.

So, for example, the claimant is put to proof the signs were adequate. They present a few photos and a map. Burden met.

The burden of proof switches to the defence to prove otherwise. A simple "bullsh!t" does not overcome the burden. You need photos, videos etc

Coupon-mad

bargepole wrote: »

This was a sample test on situational judgment, with 25 minutes allowed for completion. You are given 8 different hypothetical situations, and four possible choices for each for how you might react. You have to pick the most and least likely for each of those.

Snap!

I did this one and got 81% but it was a bit dry, reminded me of a tedious few years spent working in a Bank when I was younger:

https://www.practiceaptitudetests.com/situational-judgement-tests/

Dr_Crypto

Lamilad wrote: »

Are you being serious? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

A complete novice could distinguish a case from Beavis after 10 minutes of reading threads on this forum.


How is it "not easy" to see that Beavis was a retail car park with limited free parking where there was a commercial interest for the landowner to ensure there was a regular turnover of vehicles.

And that the signage was ample, clear and prominent enough to form a contract.

And that Mr Beavis admitted being the driver who exceeded the license to park for free.

And that the PPC had fully complied with their ATA CoP.

How is it "not easy" to see that this case is nothing like Beavis and that the precedent set by the SC would only apply to other cases where the circumstances were the same or very similar

I guess you got two complete novice judges then. One of the lines of defence was something to do with an interest in the land. Even the Judge couldn't understand it.

Coupon-mad

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

I guess you got two complete novice judges then. One of the lines of defence was something to do with an interest in the land. Even the Judge couldn't understand it.

Have you read the two links provided by bargepole?

bargepole wrote: »

Many on this forum will have taken an interest in the case, heard at Cardiff in July 2017 over three days, of Indigo v various medical staff at UHW Cardiff. There were 3 'lead defendants', representing some 80 defendants in total, some with multiple PCNs issued for failing to display permits at their workplace, totalling thousands.

The Judge found for the Claimants on all seven issues identified, and made a finding of unreasonable behaviour against the Defendants, awarding the Claimants their assessed costs of £26,000.

An application for permission to appeal both the substantive judgment, and the costs award, was lodged with the court, but the Circuit Judge has now refused that, so it's the end of the line for any appeal.

There will, apparently, be a further hearing, to determine how the costs are to be allocated between the lead defendants, the other defendants, and any third party costs awarded against the lay representatives.

The transcript of the Approved Judgment is here (a long read): https://1drv.ms/b/s!AhdXZ_haugJXgagUqi3DJjUJZX5DaA

The transcript of the Post-Judgment Cost Discussions is here (even longer): https://1drv.ms/b/s!AhdXZ_haugJXgagVKQDBfFN9baYLuw

In case anyone hasn't read the decision and discussions and assumes they know what happened in court.

You don't. Please read the links, especially the regulars here.

The facts are that the judgment has been handed down, and makes interesting - if painful - reading, for those who are on the right side and will have been horrified by the costs they were clobbered with and will want to understand WHY.

Permission to appeal against the judgment and the costs order has been refused.

The only thing still to be decided is the apportionment of costs between the defendants, which will be the subject of a separate hearing about that matter alone.