Abuse of Process - BW LEGAL win Appeal against strike out

Snakes_Belly

There is also the question of the new CoP. That should cut down on court cases. I really hope that this is robust and cuts out all the cases like fluttering tickets, own parking space, disabled badges that fall down, etc. 

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

The reality is that all pre-allocation claims which have previously been struck out by Deputy and District Judges for being “an abuse of process” could now be subject to set aside applications, and the consumers that relied on the advice given by CouponMad, Lamilad etc may be left to pick up the pieces.

That will be interesting.  

Coupon-mad has no pieces to pick up. With the mind set of BWLegal, no doubt they will throw money at set asides because they still have something to prove.
But as nosferatu1001 correctly said above, the QC erred in fact.  We all know that the SC made no mention of the debt recovery, why, because the Beavis case was about the fairness of the charge ?
They concluded that the charge was reasonable and concluded that it included recovery ?
That alone is a major flaw in the BW statement and any Judge must take notice of the SC regardless what the QC said.
Note that POFA2012 is not mentioned, nor is double recovery  I find it disgraceful that BWL care to name and shame members of this forum and if they start pumping this out to motorists, they will simply search the internet to discover the truth

Due to the flaws in the statement, we will continue with Abuse of Process and more highlight what the SC actually said to which Judges Taylor and Grand understood and indeed Judges around the country understand

Redx

Then that SC section needs to become the focus of the abuse of process , to give it the top importance it deserves

The SC ruling , CRA and any other issues need greater prominence over this appeal , to show how the Beavis case plus CRA win out in this duel

Scrapit

Wow, thats quite a feable personal attack.
Who is taking payments as a layperson? Is thats true or straight up libel?
They justify them selves saying how will parking "regulations" be enforced? They aren't regulations, just made up terms and conditions defined by a private entity for the generation of revenue and not the management of parking spaces. 
They bang on about a lay person having no training or accountability but isn't that exactly what defines someone as being lay? Other wise you would be professional and therefore just representation? 
Really, really embarrassing for a profesional outlet to put this out isnt it. Effectively admitting that they are getting beaten by amateurs. Not something anyone looking to pay a legal firm are gonna be endorsing.

Umkomaas

A disappointing read, but like all such cases we need to let the dust settle and plot our way around it. Even Beavis did not stop the fight, rather it strengthened the resolve and helped us all to find, understand and interpret law to advantage that otherwise we may never have done.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of debate. 

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

A disappointing read, but like all such cases we need to let the dust settle and plot our way around it. Even Beavis did not stop the fight, rather it strengthened the resolve and helped us all to find, understand and interpret law to advantage that otherwise we may never have done.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of debate. 

It is fair to say that we now enter phase two with Abuse of Process and we will still win

Umkomaas

It does make me wonder whether the numerous, independent Judges across England and Wales who threw out cases for 'Abuse of Process' can all have been so wrong?  Surely they have independent thought processes (and the original Southampton case was not precedent-setting), they cannot all be sheep!

DoaM

Exactly - the other judges obviously found the Southampton ruling persuasive but they won't have just blindly followed it.

Castle

Scrapit said:

Wow, thats quite a feable personal attack.
Who is taking payments as a layperson? Is thats true or straight up libel?

Maybe something for the SRA to investigate?

nosferatu1001

C-M et al have no pieces to pick up. 
Some lay reps do take money for appearing, to cover tehri time in court. Thats fine - and bargepole has already sent a cease and desist as BW legal have certainly, to my mind, libelled him.