bwlegal and premier park exceeding maximum stay period

Were_Doomed

In which case the set aside request has some validity, in that a judge striking out a claim only on the basis of the £60 added amount and not considering the rest of the claim/evidence can be challenged (which is what the Semark-Julien appeal was about), but that case isn't the silver bullet BWL claim it to be ... it simply means they can't add the double recovery amount but the rest of the claim should be tried on its merits. (Semark-Julien was a FMOTL nut who challenged their claim only on the basis of the double recovery).

Search this board for Semark-Julien ... I'm sure Coupon_mad has written a good rebuttal somewhere.

Umkomaas

The other Southampton case (second hearing) decision still stands - Britannia v Crosby, heard jointly with the original Semark-Jullien case.  BWL haven't appealed that - I wonder why?  Perhaps Mr Crosby wouldn't have been such a passive individual to tackle further?

beamerguy

Were_Doomed said:

In which case the set aside request has some validity, in that a judge striking out a claim only on the basis of the £60 added amount and not considering the rest of the claim/evidence can be challenged (which is what the Semark-Julien appeal was about), but that case isn't the silver bullet BWL claim it to be ... it simply means they can't add the double recovery amount but the rest of the claim should be tried on its merits. (Semark-Julien was a FMOTL nut who challenged their claim only on the basis of the double recovery).

Search this board for Semark-Julien ... I'm sure Coupon_mad has written a good rebuttal somewhere.

Firstly, the Salisbury case was about "Abuse of Process" and whilst it is still an attempt of double recovery, The case revolved around that judges should not just dismiss the case for the fake £60.
The circuit judge stopped short when talking about Beavis but did say that the added £60 was never mentionined and that is correct because there was no need to mention it, Parking Eye do not add on fake amounts

It's interesting to see that now, Judges are looking much closer to signs and authority. The fake £60 is on their minds and no doubt they dismiss these cases for a whole host of other reasons.

There are perfect arguments against the Salisbury case which is classed as a damp squib

Were_Doomed

Umkomaas said:

The other Southampton case appeal decision still stands - Britannia v Crosby, heard jointly with the original Semark-Jullien case.  BWL haven't appealed that - I wonder why?  Perhaps Mr Crosby wouldn't have been such a passive individual to tackle further?

Did you mean to say appeal? I thought only the Semark-Julien case was appealed ... the combined hearing of Britannia vs Semark-Julien and Crosby wasn't an appeal hearing AFAIK.

KeithP

Yes, only the Semark-Jullien case was appealed. 

The appeal was granted because the strike out decision was made before any evidence had been produced by the Defendant. S-J had not filed a Witness Statement.

All that case shows is that DJ Grande was a bit hasty, in that one case only, in reaching a conclusion. That's all.

Were_Doomed

Agreed ... I was merely querying the statement "appeal decision", since the original (joined) case wasn't an appeal hearing.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not criticising. I just feel that any commentary we give should be accurate as many newbies will copy/paste without thinking or understanding. I'm more than happy for anything I've mis-stated to be corrected.

Umkomaas

Yes, wording from me was inaccurate. I'll amend. I was attempting to reflect that it was a further examination of the same case beyond that determined by DJ Taylor, followed by subsequent set aside application, that being heard again by DJ Grand, with the original judgment upheld. 

Le_Kirk

This was what @Coupon-mad wrote and is what is appended in the standard new template defence at paragraph # 7: -

 It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

FAIR.DEAL

Thank you all, the court is asking me to prepare ebundle and a paper bundle, can this be the old WS or am I allowed to write a new one with reference to semark-jullien?

Were_Doomed

If your WS has already been filed then you can't change it. You can of course always submit a Supplementary WS.