LPS Ltd/Gladstones Mediation Stage - Assistance

D_P_Dance

WRT research and prep, read CPR 27.14(2)(g) and everything you can find about unreasonable behaviour.

bargepole

D_P_Dance said:

WRT research and prep, read CPR 27.14(2)(g) and everything you can find about unreasonable behaviour.

Too late. The hearing is over and no costs were awarded. Nothing to see here, move on, next case please.

beamerguy

The main thing OP is that you won, well done

Another car crash for Gladstones ...... par for the course now

Umkomaas

beamerguy said:

The main thing OP is that you won, well done

Another car crash for Gladstones ...... par for the course now

Given the circumstances, this was more like a plane crash!

Well done @ra9jd, great result. 🥂

ra9jd

Many thanks to all - the information here was priceless. Is there somewhere I should post any information on how it went/the result to assist others or for stats?

However one point that judge mentioned which was worth noting - I am not sure where the best place to post this would be is that I referenced the Britania V Crosby case around inflated costs, which the judge mentioned that there was an appeal placed upon that which was I did not refer to which could be considered attempting to (I can't remember what I am trying to say but it is on the tip of my tongue) - but 'wrongly influencing the decision'. 

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

beamerguy said:

The main thing OP is that you won, well done

Another car crash for Gladstones ...... par for the course now

Given the circumstances, this was more like a plane crash!

Well done @ra9jd, great result. 🥂

Ha, I know but don't they need competence and intelligence to fly a plane ?

Coupon-mad

ra9jd said:

Many thanks to all - the information here was priceless. Is there somewhere I should post any information on how it went/the result to assist others or for stats?

However one point that judge mentioned which was worth noting - I am not sure where the best place to post this would be is that I referenced the Britania V Crosby case around inflated costs, which the judge mentioned that there was an appeal placed upon that which was I did not refer to which could be considered attempting to (I can't remember what I am trying to say but it is on the tip of my tongue) - but 'wrongly influencing the decision'. 

He is wrong.

That appeal decision is NOTHING LIKE he thinks it is and if anything, he has been misled by a parking firm trying to wrongly influence the decision. 

The appeal was not against Britannia v Crosby and the decision in that case stands and his case remains struck out, for ever.  Britannia appealed the case of the other guy who was sitting in the room at Southampton, hanging onto our coat-tails and not understanding what on earth was happening when we won the case initially.  And the appeal Judge merely decided in that other case (Britannia v Semark-Jullien) that his case should not have resulted in the entire claim being struck out and it was re-set for a hearing. 

That's all.  There was no finding either way about the illegality of adding a false sum of £60 that was never paid, and represents double recovery of the minimal costs of the letters.  The Judge mentioned the Beavis case and observed that it didn't involve added fake costs (no-one said it did...) but Britannia's barrister failed to alert the Judge to ParkingEye v Somerfield (para 149 of HHJ Hegarty's decision in the High Court) which DOES deal with the fact that adding £60 on top of an already inflated parking charge that already covers all the costs, is unrecoverable.

Wonder why Britannia forgot to tell him that?!