Final Hearing on 27 March - Minster Baywatch/Bransby Wilson - Neath Train Station

MumOfABeagle · 24 March at 9:42PM

Thanks @1505grandad - I've now got that judgement printed and in my bundle of documents ready for Friday.

@Castle - that is my question too. The GS WS relies on OPS v Wilshaw to say that landowner authority is not required where a binding contract is formed through the signage between the motorist and the Claimant, but the Claimant has confirmed that I'm being pursued as the registered keeper not as the driver, so a binding contract was never formed with me through the signage even on the Claimant's own case. Also, nothing in the documents exhibited to the GS WS would suggest that there was a tenancy at will, so I think OPS v Wilshaw is distinguished?

I think I've read also in another thread (or maybe in one of the MSE template docs) that landowner authority is a requirement of KADOE, so if the Claimant hasn't got landowner authority then it has obtained my details in breach of GDPR?

Coupon-mad · 24 March at 9:59PM

Sadly the Circuit Judge - HHJ Simpkiss - in OPS v Wilshaw was from a criminal law background as a Recorder and he admitted he was not au fait with contract law (let alone parking law & KADOE rules).

As a result he was COMPLETELY TAKEN IN by what the Claimant's barrister said.

I watched the hearing.

It was a car crash.

He was wrong on every point. He knew nothing of KADOE and the BPA CoP requirement for landowner authority despite the fact that the entire BPA CoP was exhibited in the case…

He didn't look. Just believed what he was told. Lapped it up.

He also took into account a letter secretly sent to him by OPS, bleating along the lines that their reputation had been damaged and they wouldn't be able to trade if the decision stood (Mrs Wilshaw wasn't copied in) and he wrongly allowed costs waaay in excess of the small claims limit and couldn't even add the costs up properly.

MumOfABeagle · 26 March at 9:20AM

Thanks @Coupon-mad.

What you describe above is absolutely shocking from a judge. Here's hoping that the judge I'm in front of on tomorrow has some contract law knowledge at least!

MumOfABeagle · 27 March at 2:48PM

Good news - the judge struck out Minster Baywatch's claim pursuant to CPR 3.4 on the basis that the POC was woefully deficient, did not comply with CPR 16.4 and did not disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim!!

MB was not represented at the hearing, having given notice when filing its WS that it was content for the judge to make a decision on the papers.

I asked the judge to decide on strike out as a preliminary issue in the first instance, so she retired to consider my submissions, which included Chan and Akande as authority (which I found on this forum, so a massive thanks to you all in that respect!!). The judge called me back in after 20mins and gave judgement in my favour and struck out MB's claim in its entirety.

The judge then mentioned that I had filed a costs assessment and invited me to make submissions on that, which I did. However, the Judge felt that MB's non-compliance with the CPR was not sufficient to make an award for costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Judge did however award me my expenses in the sum of £110.70 to be paid by Minster Baywatch within 21 days.

Having reflected, I think maybe I should have let the judge hear me on all my submissions instead of asking a decision on strike out as a preliminary issue, because after hearing all the issues with MB's claim (i) no contract with driver (ii) no landowner authority and (ii) the proceedings being issued against me in breach of MB's own licence agreement with Bransby Wilson, the judge might have felt that MB's conduct as a whole did amount to unreasonable behaviour.

Nevertheless, a win is a win!