We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused
Options
Comments
-
A combination of:Coupon-mad wrote: »What do you think caused 100% costs?
1) The Judge's view that the claim should not have been defended and was entirely unmeritorious. This seems to be the view of the Unions and Trust (HB).
2) One of the witnesses being dishonest in court. He was the husband of one of a HCA who appeared because he was the RK of a vehicle.
3) The conduct of the McKenzie Friends both during the litigation and at Trial.
4) The involvement of the media and other third-parties. This likely made the Judges want to produce a water-tight judgement to avoid a messy appeal or encouraging others to defend such claims and thereby waste court time.0 -
There weren't any McKenzie friends.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
A combination of:
1) The Judge's view that the claim should not have been defended and was entirely unmeritorious. This seems to be the view of the Unions and Trust (HB).
2) One of the witnesses being dishonest in court. He was the husband of one of a HCA who appeared because he was the RK of a vehicle.
3) The conduct of the McKenzie Friends both during the litigation and at Trial.
4) The involvement of the media and other third-parties. This likely made the Judges want to produce a water-tight judgement to avoid a messy appeal or encouraging others to defend such claims and thereby waste court time.
who waste court time?Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
In what capacity were non-legally qualified individuals presenting the defence then?Coupon-mad wrote: »There weren't any McKenzie friends.0 -
I guess what I'd find interesting is for someone to set out why they believed the District and Circuit Judges erred in their reasoning.
From reading the first instance judgement and the appeal I don't fully understand on what realistic basis the Defence was run.
The DJ held that the signs were adequate. Why were they not?
There appeared to be some argument about shifts over-running. Again that isn't really within the scope of a parking case but rather something the unions should take up with the HB.
There was a confused point about an interest in land based on some legislation from 1925. The Judges couldn't understand this point. What is it?0 -
In what capacity were non-legally qualified individuals presenting the defence then?
McKenzie friends can't do that.
Lay Representatives can speak in court.
Not sure why you are focussing on the defence itself.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »
Not sure why you are focussing on the defence itself.
The defence as in the defence put forward by the Defendants or the people presenting that defence?
If the former:
Beacuse I'd like to understand what exactly it was and why the Judges have got it wrong.
If the latter:
Beacuse I worry that the nurses themselves were being used as "pawns" in a campaign by those ideologically opposed to PPCs and have had their costs needlessly inflated when a more pragmatic solution would have been to settle with the PPC at an earlier stage without the expense of a trial. That appears to have been the advice of the HB and Unions who presumably do have legal departments.
A professional solicitor can be sued in negligence for incorrect advice. I suspect there is little, if any, meaningful action that can be taken against lay reps should indeed they have misadvised the nurses.0 -
Dr: They didn’t have to follow the advice though, you can hardly blame the Lay Reps; the nurses are all professional adults after all and were free to listen to whatever advice they wanted to.
The nurses were let down by their managers, not people like Bargepole and the Lay Reps. Barry Beavis has done more for parking than anyone else on here except Bargepole, and the other Lay Rep is one of the best around according to lots of Pranksters blogs down the years.If you were not the driver write to the parking firm and tell them who was so they CANNOT hold you liable. The person who was driving the car is responsible so let them deal with it. Not you! Don’t let people with an agenda tell you otherwise.0 -
Those lines need very careful reading between.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Not really! You'd need to be Smart to post something so cryptic.Those lines need very careful reading between.
As I said before - fooling no-one! Just an annoying fly buzzing round the forum
Oh, for a swatter!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards