Help and guidance please

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi


Can the following points be used to address Elliot v Loake and CPS v AJH Films Ltd.


E v L
You refer to Elliot v Loake (1982) as case law which supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary evidence, is the driver.
This is an incorrect representation of the case for the following reasons:
The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the appellant was the driver because of the ample evidence that he was the driver, and not, as you incorrectly state, because of the lack of evidence as to who the driver actually was.
In the case there was ample evidence that justified the magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary car.
Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic evidence showed that the appellant lied. Other material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night and that no-one else had permission to drive the car.
This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.
You are also reminded you of the general principle that the claimant has to prove their case. You have shown no evidence I was the driver. This is because you cannot, because I was not the driver.


CPS v AJH
This is only applicable in an employee v employer situation and this was not such a situation.

Coupon-mad

as you incorrectly state

You wouldn't be putting 'you' in a court submission. 'The Claimant'.

This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.
You are also reminded you of the general principle that the claimant has to prove their case. You have shown no evidence I was the driver. This is because you cannot, because I was not the driver.

I would prune the use of the word 'principle' which is in the above paragraph four times, one of which has it spelt the wrong way for the meaning.

Capt_Mainwaring

As ever, many thanks CM.

Capt_Mainwaring

It's my turn in court tomorrow. I rang them to see which DJ would be present. It's DJ Wright and from what I gather, she is well versed in the subject.


Any last minute tips for my preparation, would be greatly appreciated.

Umkomaas

Capt_Mainwaring wrote: »

Any last minute tips for my preparation, would be greatly appreciated.

Get there at least half an hour early. Check out the parking logistics around the court in advance (don't cop for another ticket!).

Smartly dressed - suit and tie, or as minimum, smart casual (with matching shoes ). Give the Primark jogging trousers and the Rab C Nesbit grubby string vest and sweatband a day off! . Swerve Wetherspoon until after the hearing.

Don't accept anything handed to you by the other side in the waiting room - politely refuse. Address Judge Wright as 'Ma'am' (or 'Sir' in the event of a last minute male substitute).

And, finally, good luck, please do come back and update us - whatever the result. We are all behind you.

Capt_Mainwaring

Thanks Umkomaas.


I actually work in Skipton, so parking on the day will not be an issue. From what I gather, Excel/BW don't enjoy going to the 'Gateway of the Dales' so hopefully, their losing run will continue tomorrow!

Umkomaas

From what I gather, Excel/BW don't enjoy going to the '[STRIKE]Gateway of the Dales[/STRIKE]' 'PPCs' Graveyard' so hopefully, their losing run will continue tomorrow!

Fixed that for you.

Lamilad

Swerve Wetherspoon until after the hearing.

Good advice considering there's one just a stone's throw from the court.

Don't worry about EvL or AJH, Judge Wright absolutely will not entertain them. She usually cuts the rep off before they even get to them saying "you know this court's position on those cases"

You've produced a very looooong WS, JW will not love you for that so try to make clear at the start that you want to focus on your primary defence which (presumably) is that you were not the driver and they haven't complied with PoFA.

You can say that your other points are made 'in the alternative'

JW is very good at spotting the many glaring holes in Excel/BWL cases. If she starts questioning their rep about these, just sit there and keep schtum. You may find she'll destroy them for you.

Don't waffle.... JW is all about the law, the law, and nothing but the law! She is not interested in your opinion or emotional statements.

beamerguy

Capt Mainwaring ... looking forward to your win tomorrow

Capt_Mainwaring

Brilliant Lamilad. Many thanks for that. I know you have enjoyed considerable success in Skipton (I wish you were acting as my Lay Rep tomorrow!).


I sounds like less is definitely more with JW. I was just reading your summary of the case from early this month and I was going to make mention of that (the one with the altered VRM logs) but I think I'll not bother.