BW Legal - Any help very much appreciated...

didgeridoooo

Yes I considered that but thought, for all the effort, people will probably start from top down and miss it til the end! I considered changing the OP as that's at top of every page. Bold message to say "Here is a summary..."

didgeridoooo

Well a Sharpie pen seems to have given me powers I never thought I had! I will report back with WS when I am no longer ashamed of it! 2 quick questions if I may:


1. I read this in a WS on another thread and rather like it, but want to clarify what it means so I don't misuse it: "Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter." Could someone please briefly explain it? I think it's relevant to my case but ....



2. BEAVIS - I didn't refer to Beavis in my Defence. Should I sneak something in about it here, just to cover that base in case they come with intentions of fooling the judge on it's relevance to my case?


Thanks

Umkomaas

Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

I think it's relevant to my case but ....

Why do you think 'promissory estoppel' is relevant to your case?

Have you undertaken a very basic Google search, because that should provide a much more comprehensive understanding for you than a regular trying to paraphrase it in a couple of sentences.

2. BEAVIS - I didn't refer to Beavis in my Defence. Should I sneak something in about it here, just to cover that base in case they come with intentions of fooling the judge on it's relevance to my case?

Beavis might well be relevant, but you need to be clear about the part of the ruling that impinges on your case and to what effect/extent.

You can't just throw in a 'Beavis innit, your Honour' as a 'just in case' cover-all pleading.

Tell us how you might envisage using the relevant part(s) of Beavis.

Coupon-mad

However, I did not know this statement has to be read out in that hearing.

It doesn't. No-one said it does. But the poor Judge is expected to read both sides' submissions just before you are both called in for the hearing.

So make it readable and on point.

didgeridoooo

Umkomaas wrote: »

Why do you think 'promissory estoppel' is relevant to your case?
Have you undertaken a very basic Google search, because that should provide a much more comprehensive understanding for you than a regular trying to paraphrase it in a couple of sentences.

Yes, several times. I thought I understood it once, but checking again I am not sure if I am up to making sense of it fully. So I was hoping for more of a layman's explanation from someone who knows a bit about my case.

"In the law of contracts, the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present."

It probably sounds odd, like I am just guessing, but a few weeks ago I had this noted to include and at that time I felt like I understand how it applied, but have forgotten now. Mind isn't what it used to be. The claimant in my case states "Parking Tariffs" on signage, no mention of timed entry/exit, no mention of ANPR technology being used. I wonder if that's where I thought this principle applied. Or I was just confused and am now talking out of the wrong oreface. Stranger things have happened, happy to be told that's the case, if it is

Regarding Beavis - I have read a lot of advice, including some given to me, suggesting that most firms (BWL especially) often just send some half-wit to court with an order to keep shouting "beavis, beavis, beavis". As a result, I wondered if I should make a point to pre-empt that, along lines of "If C seeks to quote Beavis against me, that is not relevant as that was a case involving free parking periods, and sevearl Judges have ruled that cases like mine are not to be confused as similar to Beavis case... quote/exhibit". That's what I was wondering, I often see it mentioned in WS's on the board. As yet I haven't even mentioned it, which may miss a chance to argue it's lack of relevance.


e.g. Point 16 by CM here - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72186852#Comment_72186852

Umkomaas

The claimant in my case states "Parking Tariffs" on signage, no mention of timed entry/exit, no mention of ANPR technology being used.

That doesn't look much like promissory estoppel to me, but there are greater legal minds than mine dropping by from time to time. See if anyone else chips in.

I would say a more obvious promissory estoppel example is where a parking firm representative told you that it would be okay to park on a hatched area, or it would be fine for you extend your stay beyond the limit, then you find that the parking firm are hitting you with a PCN.

I don't see anything like that in your case, but I've not been back over the entire saga.

didgeridoooo

Thanks Umko, your example helped a lot. Doesn't sound applicable so will leave out unless I hear something to suggest otherwise. thanks again

nosferatu1001

Its not at the top of everyones page however. Thats an option that can be changed.

COuple pages A4, max. Thats your WS length. Thats with 1.5 line spacing and Times new roman size 12. Anything over that you need to be *sure* it is necessary.

didgeridoooo

PS - Removed this:


"Driver had no idea they were not ‘measuring’ parking periods, but timed entry/exit periods. It is incumbent on the party offering terms to make this clear to those whom they invite to contract with them and it is trite law that any uncertainty in a contract should be resolved against the person who offered it under the 'contra preferentem’ rule."


but wondering if that last reference should be included somewhere.

1505grandad

All defence drafts seem to have been deleted so nothing to refer to.

Also all paras should be numbered - easier to refer to a specific para if commenting. They have to be when WS filed at Court anyway.