Biting back with a vengeance

GettingOnInYears

I just finished compiling the rebuttals of the defendants witness statements and onto a full review of my own.

I'm now an exceedingly happy man. More so than Mr Kipling. The case law I refer to is the crucial part. On researching further, I find that there are instances of some of them being binding legal precedent on both the missing sign situation and then onto the UK/GDPR failures.

That's a BIG WOW, as the case is now as watertight as it could be. Just goes to show what a bit extra time sitting at the computer researching things can bring out eh?

I'll just hand the judge a formal note explaining that before commencement of the hearing, which is supposedly what you do in this sort of situation.

Coupon-mad

Handing info to a judge in the day? What do you mean? An amicus curiae note?

This rings alarm bells - be careful.

This smacks of ambush by you and unreasonable conduct could be argued against you if the case has to be adjourned as a result.

Also be aware that hearings never quite go the way you envisage. I have never had a case go as I thought it would because judges are human, all different, some grumpy, and many are far more likely to listen to a solicitor for the other side than a lay person like you. The judge might start off against you.

I wish you luck and a canny judge but keep your eyes on him/her for visual cues. You have to play it by ear a bit.

GettingOnInYears

I won't be presenting any new evidence so there's no ambush. All it will be is a statement of the cases I mentioned in my Case Law section of the Witness Statement which will be subject to consideration under binding legal precedent from the courts of appeal. The judge may well know that anyway, however it's worth handing a note to that effect. If not I can still bring it up in my hearing.

CPR 27.2 & PD 27A – Small Claims Track

Small Claims hearings are:

• informal
• flexible
• not bound by strict rules of evidence

PD 27A explicitly states the court may require or accept further information at the hearing if needed.

This includes short written clarifications.

GettingOnInYears

This is what I have prepared. As I say - it's not new evidence, just a clarification

The claimant wishes to clarify the status of the authorities cited in the witness statement.

Binding authorities (Court of Appeal):

• Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2000] EWCA CA v 106 — binding on all lower courts; establishes that a motorist cannot be bound by contractual terms not adequately brought to their attention.

• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 (CA) —binding; confirms that contractual terms must be communicated before contract formation and that onerous terms require special prominence.

• Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311 — binding; establishes that non-material damage (distress) is recoverable without pecuniary loss in data protection claims.

• Farley v Paymaster (Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117 —binding; confirms that misprocessing alone constitutes a breach, that disclosure to a third party is not required, and that non-material damage under s.168 DPA 2018 has no minimum seriousness threshold.

Persuasive authorities (County Court):

• Excel Parking Services v Cutts (2011) — persuasive only; cited for reasoning on signage adequacy.

• Excel Parking Services v Smith (2017) — persuasive only; cited for factual similarity regarding contractual clarity.

• Pace v Lengyel (2017) — persuasive only; cited for illustrative reasoning on landowner authority and signage.

• Reed v Boswell (2022) — persuasive only; a County Court decision cited for factual illustration in data protection matters.

The claimant relies on the binding Court of Appeal authorities for the core legal principles governing contract formation, incorporation of terms, and the requirements for establishing unlawful processing and non-material damage under the DPA 2018/UK GDPR. The County Court decisions are cited only as persuasive examples where the factual matrix is similar.

I also wish to clarify that the interest start date in the quantum section of my witness statement is incorrect by one year. The start date should be 19th July 2025

GettingOnInYears

And this is the crucial part of my response to GroupNexus presenting a site contract without their signature.

Unsigned Contract –Binding Legal Authorities

1. The landowner signed the agreement, but GroupNexus did not. A contract requires both offer and acceptance. The landowner’s signature is only an offer. CP Plus must show acceptance of the written terms.

Binding Authorities

RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14

Supreme Court – binding

• Where the parties intend not to be bound until signature, no contract exists until the missing signature is provided.
• Conduct cannot override that intention.

Application: If the agreement contemplates signature as the mode of acceptance, CP Plus’s failure to sign means they never accepted the terms.

Reveille Independent LLC v Anotech International (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 443

Court of Appeal – binding

• Acceptance by conduct only applies where the contract does not require signature.
• If signature is required, conduct cannot cure the absence of signature.

Application: The presence of a signature block for CP Plus indicates signature was required. Their conduct cannot replace the missing signature.

Golden Ocean Group Ltd vSalgaocar Mining Industries [2012] EWCA Civ 265

Court of Appeal – binding

• Conduct must be clear, unequivocal, and referable to the specific written contract.
• If conduct could relate to another arrangement, it does not prove acceptance.

Application: CP Plus were already operating the site. Their conduct is not clearly referable to the unsigned agreement and cannot prove acceptance of its terms.

Conclusion

Because CP Plus did not sign, and the agreement required signature for acceptance:

• the contract was never executed,
• CP Plus did not accept the terms,
• their conduct cannot cure the missing signature, and
• the document cannot establish authority to operate the site or to access DVLA data.