• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Judicial Review Judgment: Stephen Duff v Secretary of State for Transport

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judicial Review Judgment: Stephen Duff v Secretary of State for Transport

    This afternoon the long awaited judgment regarding Stephen Duff's Judicial Review was handed down by Justice Edes.

    For those who have been following this case, Stephen Duff (the Claimant) is a Certificated Bailiff and runs a business called ProServe which made a large number of requests in 2014 to DVLA for disclosure of keeper info.....despite not being a member of an ATA.

    The judgment is extremely important and no doubt the legally minded members on here will have observations after pouring over the finer details.

    It is now expected that DVLA will refuse to provide data to any other company who are not members of an ATA.


    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...2015/1605.html


    Further details and a copy of the judgment can be accessed from the Parking Prankster here:


    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/
    Last edited by Amethyst; 13th June 2015, 08:37:AM. Reason: fixed link
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Judicial Review Judgment: Stephen Duff v Secretary of State for Transport

    Link didn't work but this one will: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean
    "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
    (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Judicial Review Judgment: Stephen Duff v Secretary of State for Transport

      I agree with the Deputy High Court Judge who refused permission on the papers, prior to its grant at an oral hearing. She observed that this claim for judicial review is really a merits challenge to the decision rather than a true public law claim. The claimant does not agree that he should be subject to a requirement that he should join an ATA if he wishes to be able to access large amounts of data from the register in order that he can profit by recovering sums of money from the keepers or drivers of vehicles which have trespassed on his clients' land. He is no doubt entitled to that view. However, the Secretary of State took a different view and his decision is plainly not irrational and there is no other arguable basis for quashing it.
      Quite cutting there.

      So will none of the trade associations accept ProServe as members ? or do they just not want to join one?
      #staysafestayhome

      Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

      Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

      Comment

      View our Terms and Conditions

      LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

      If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


      If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
      Working...
      X