Court Report: case won on Fairlie v Fenton and Hancock v Promontoria

Coupon-mad

Yes, mainly because GA are 'disclosed' by name on the signs.  That's key.

So it works in Minster Baywatch cases (Bransby Wilson are disclosed on the signs) and CEL at Wells-Next-the-Sea where 'by order of The Harbour Commissioner' is on the signs.

And stations, as in this case.

Johnersh

The gift that keeps on giving that case 😁

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

The gift that keeps on giving that case 😁

Yep.

You found Hancock v Promontoria and it's great!

pustit

No reminders being sent to the season ticket holders is the money spinner.  How many other customers have been "caught out" and simply paid up, I wonder.

Fruitcake

I wonder if this could be argued in VCS cases at Bristol airport (and possibly other sites) where the name of the landowner is disclosed on the airport website but not on the signs. It is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that the majority of motorists intending to visit the airport would have viewed the airport website where it is made clear that the site is owned by a foreign investment company, but is managed by an agent.

VCS have a contract with Bristol Airport Ltd, a sub-contractor to the foreign landowner, but have never produced a contract with or flowing from the landowner.

Coupon-mad

Worth a try, plus there must be an entrance sign or two that say 'Welcome to Bristol Airport' or similar?

Anyone stopping to get their bearings or looking for a drop-off area at an Airport is entitled to believe that's offered by...the Airport.  Same as at a station.

The point made in Fairlie v Fenton is that the trader who says they are offering the contract and can sue on it, has to 'make the contract their own' and take responsibility for litigation. If not, they are just agents.

Makes me laugh that VCS are at the very least going to have to re-livery their vans to make it clear to drivers what the camera is being used for AND they won't be able to pursue PCNs for 'momentary' stopping that fits what it says in the new statutory Code.

There's also an exemption for setting down or picking up passengers.

And it says byelaws always take precedence (words to that effect).

It'll be interesting to see how the new Single Appeals Service will interpret all this including considering CRA 2015 fairness and the Equality Act for the first time.