Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside. Wording help please.

Coupon-mad

Good except your wording doesn't refer to an exhibit (the Fairlie v Fenton transcript, found easily online).

And is this true of your sign?

The Claimant's sign states that their role is to 'enforce', 'monitor' and 'patrol'

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Good except your wording doesn't refer to an exhibit (the Fairlie v Fenton transcript, found easily online).

And is this true of your sign?

The Claimant's sign states that their role is to 'enforce', 'monitor' and 'patrol'

All three verbs are used in the conditions although it´s not a direct quote of how they are written. Here is the sign

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F4viZq8hPp2-aaQh8GTKr79xZugangAD/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Perfect, then yes your Fairlie v Fenton point is VERY strong and should be high up in your WS.  With the transcript referred to as an Exhibit.

vincentvega27

Castle said:

ABC Parking Solutions Ltd changed its name to ABC Facilities Management Ltd in November 2019 and was struck off in April 2023.
ABC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LTD filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk)

I´ve added this extra part to the paragraph about the company. Anything extra to add or will this do the trick?

14. 'ABC Parking Solutions' is written at the top of the signs where the disputed terms are stated. Therefore, those terms and the licence to park is made by the principal, ABC Parking Solutions. ABC Parking solutions (Company number 08904395) changed its name to ABC Facilities Management in 2019 and eventually ceased trading on the 11th April 2023 due to a compulsory strike off. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08904395/filing-history

1505grandad

"14. 'ABC Parking Solutions' is written at the top of the signs...."  -  I assume that the sign linked above relates to the car park you actually parked in  -  if so the sign states:-

"ABC Car Park Solutions Limited"

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

OK, a few things to improve it:

At the end, your statement of truth says 'this defence' which is wrong!

In para 4 remove the phrase about getting a SAR.  Only mention appealing.

Move the HHJ Murch section and also the Fairlie v Fenton section up, so that they come underneath para 5.

Don't call it 'The HHJ Murch judgment' in the sub-heading.  Give it the proper case name.

Go and find the court transcript for Fairlie v Fenton by Googling.

Please copy and paste the wording you have about that Fairlie v Fenton case here in a reply so we can alter it to make sense.  At the moment your words about that case are not quite right because they are relevant to the Harbour Commissioners case and this is slightly different.

OK draft 2. I think we are close.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G69BdRfcTlTcu8tGt_4C7LpKzk33WXyA/view?usp=sharing


Final questions. Do I need to post an exhibit of the POC, or is this unnecessary?

Also I´ve tried to search for Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 online for the last 30 minutes but I find endless mentions of it but not the actual transcript i need. Can someone please send me a link. None of these searches are coming up for me I think it might be due to being out the country or something. Either way I´m going mad reading endless forum posts on various sites and not finding what I need. Thanks!

Coupon-mad

I have it as screenshots which you could save as a single PDF:

vincentvega27

Is this it? Just this tiny piece of text? I´m not allowing myself to believe I can base an entire legal argument on a tiny JPG from the internet. 

Castle

1505grandad said:

"14. 'ABC Parking Solutions' is written at the top of the signs...."  -  I assume that the sign linked above relates to the car park you actually parked in  -  if so the sign states:-

"ABC Car Park Solutions Limited"

And according to Google and Companies House, "ABC Car Park Solutions Limited" has never existed.

Coupon-mad

vincentvega27 said:

Is this it? Just this tiny piece of text? I´m not allowing myself to believe I can base an entire legal argument on a tiny JPG from the internet. 

No, it's what I posted just before you did.  The above is just a summary of what it means.