Does Beavis apply to pre Nov '15 tickets?

[Amethyst]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

The Supreme Court published its decision in Parking Eye (appellant) v Beavis, Nov 4 2015.

This is the Judgment and hearing info -> https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html

Who is the appellant ?


( Beavis was also the appeallant in the case at the court of appeal btw )

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

I got to third line and stopped reading.
Anone who knows about this case knows Beavis was the appellant.
If you can't get basic facts right, why should we read further?

And several parking cases were stayed until Beavis had finally wound its way through the court system, and the outcome then applied at those trials although the events occurred prior to the final judgement.

County Court went against Beavis. Beavis was the appellant who next argued a point of law, which the Court of Appeal provided its decision in favour of Beavis April 3 2015. Parking Eye was then the appellant (and Beavis the respondent) who argued a point of law at the Supreme Court, which overturned the decision by the Court of Appeal Nov 4 2015. To be fair to Parking Eye, in this case they had around 20 warning signs at the entrance to the retail park, so in my view this would satisfy MR Denning in Shoe Lane Parking v Thornton. So regardless of whether Parking Eye (UKSC) is the relevant authority or not, in Penny's case there was only one sign at the entrance to the gym so it's automatically distinguishable by that fact alone. Notwithstanding, it's my view that Parking Eye (UKSC) is only authorative 4 Nov 2015, which was too late to be applicable law for Parking Eye in Penny's case.

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

That might be what you think but as far as I'm concerned there is no evidence that the implications to the economy was a consideration in the decision to bring the test case and I seriously doubt it could have been allowed to be.

Why does only 1 in 4 employees win against an employer at tribunal, is because only 1 in 4 have a good case. Put simply if every employee defeated the employer it would create problems for businesses which of course has knock on effect to the economy. Why is negligence difficult to prove, why in contract and tort for actual losses? The same reason applied, if you sue a company in tort for other things than actual losses it would affect the economy. 88,000 is tremendous number of cases so it seems logical the banks would do everything in their power to ensure the law in on their side, so that's probably why the cases were stayed not because they were not merit-worthy.

[des8]

Re: Does Beavis apply to pre Nov '15 tickets?

Court of appeal Judgement:

Before :LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICKVice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil DivisionLORD JUSTICE PATTENandSIR TIMOTHY LLOYD- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :PARKINGEYE LIMITED Claimant/Respondent- and -BARRY BEAVIS DefendantAppellant

39. In the end I am satisfied that in this case the amount payable by the appellant is notextravagant or unconscionable and that the court should therefore not decline toenforce the contract. I would therefore dismiss the appeal.

Supreme Court:
JUDGMENT ...........ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis(Appellant)


Where does it say Parking Eye Appellant please?
Keep digging!
When did you last actually read the case details ... properly read I mean?

[R0b]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Notwithstanding, it's my view that Parking Eye (UKSC) is only authorative 4 Nov 2015, which was too late to be applicable law for Parking Eye in Penny's case.

Judicial decisions do not have retrospective effect in relation to concluded cases. They can however apply to ongoing proceedings and proceeding which have yet to commence.

So to say that Beavis can only apply from 4 November 2015 is incorrect.

[Amethyst]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Ref this

To be fair to Parking Eye, in this case they had around 20 warning signs at the entrance to the retail park, so in my view this would satisfy MR Denning in Shoe Lane Parking v Thornton. So regardless of whether Parking Eye (UKSC) is the relevant authority or not, in Penny's case there was only one sign at the entrance to the gym so it's automatically distinguishable by that fact alone.

At all material times since then, ParkingEye has displayed about 20 signs at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals throughout it.

Penny's case they had a sign at the entrance and 9 other signs within the car park ( according to PE anyway)

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Judicial decisions do not have retrospective effect in relation to concluded cases. They can however apply to ongoing proceedings and proceeding which have yet to commence.

So to say that Beavis can only apply from 4 November 2015 is incorrect.

Rob, give me an authority, a point in law for what you're suggesting. In the UK, if the convention articles were not enacted into law by the Human Rights Act 1998, an appellant would have had to go right through all the courts including the now Supreme Court before it could go to the European Court of Human Rights. In the USA, an appellant can appeal directly to the Appeal Court or the Supreme Court if it were matter relating to the US Constitution as the state constitution is its highest legal source: Marbury v Madison (1806). I am interested in the rule of law not 'continued procedure'. In the UK we do not have such a constitution we instead have binding precedent in order of priority so the appellant under the UK's unwritten constitution must go right through the court system. If an appellant court provides a decision then that decision is binding, ie stare decisis. The UK courts in the English legal system have their own autonomy. The Appeal court went against Parking Eye so that creates common law as the Court of Appeal is the 2nd highest court in the constitution. The Supreme Court, broadly speaking, is in effect a constitutional court as it is the final legal authority in the UK's constitution.

[EXC]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

88,000 is tremendous number of cases so it seems logical the banks would do everything in their power to ensure the law in on their side, so that's probably why the cases were stayed not because they were not merit-worthy.

I see.

@Amethyst just looked at the Wiki entry for OFT v Abbey and see we get a couple of credits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office...plc#cite_ref-9

[R0b]

Re: Does Beavis apply to pre Nov '15 tickets?

Cadder v HM Advocate 2010 Supreme Court or the unreported case of Shanker v GMC 2015 High Court.

Summary of Shanker:

Held: Application refused.
There was nothing to suggest that Adesina applied retrospectively, Adesina followed. Judicial decisions did not have retrospective effect on decided cases, although the position was different in relation to ongoing cases, Cadder (Peter) v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, [2010] 1 W.L.R. 2601 followed.

Not concerned about the US or any other country, we are talking about the UK.

If A trespassed on B's property in November 2015 and they negotiated for over a year for a sum of money, and in the meantime a case was decided on their very point of arguments, you cannot say that the decided case could not be used if proceedings were commenced simply because the trespass was committed before the decided case.

Rule of law or continued procedure or whatever you wish to argue, the fact is which has already been pointed out, judicial decisions decided at a later date can be used in ongoing proceedings, hence the example of 80,000 stayed cases pending the decision of another.

[Amethyst]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

We do indeed All that effort was worth it xxxxxx

[Openlaw15]

Re: Does Beavis apply to pre Nov '15 tickets?

Cadder v HM Advocate 2010 Supreme Court or the unreported case of Shanker v GMC 2015 High Court.



Not concerned about the US or any other country, we are talking about the UK.

If A trespassed on B's property in November 2015 and they negotiated for over a year for a sum of money, and in the meantime a case was decided on their very point of arguments, you cannot say that the decided case could not be used if proceedings were commenced simply because the trespass was committed before the decided case.

Rule of law or continued procedure or whatever you wish to argue, the fact is which has already been pointed out, judicial decisions decided at a later date can be used in ongoing proceedings, hence the example of 80,000 stayed cases pending the decision of another.

How can it be an on-going proceeding if the appellant knows not the decision in the future. By the way am saying a precedent cannot be retro-activated. In any event these are exceptions to the rule in that they are essentially public law relates, ie one judicial review and the other case relates to a constitutional matter, ie the police. These authorities are not commercial cases. It proves my main point in any event in that that judicial decisions are not retro activated (retrospective) except in very rare circumstances.

[R0b]

Re: Does Beavis apply to pre Nov '15 tickets?

Ongoing proceedings are those which have commenced but not yet been fully decided/determined/concluded use whichever word you would like they all mean the same.

I'm not disagreeing with you about retrospective decisions, in fact I have already agreed with you on that point. The point you are making or from what I can understand of it, is that regardless of whether judgment has been given, decided cases after legal proceedings have commenced but after the date of the cause of action can be used in proceedings.

P.S. authorities do not need to be all commercial case for them to be followed, Shanker followed Cadder, two completely different ends of the stick.

[mystery1]

Re: Does Beavis apply to pre Nov '15 tickets?

Why would any court make a ruling based on a court of appeal ruling that had been overturned because it was wrong ?

Beavis, however, lost at court, appeal court and supreme court levels so the point, even if valid or if your high on magic mushrooms, is moot.

M1

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Also that waffle about incorporation is just that in this case.
PE use 2 signs: one at the entrance in large letters warning that it is for Patrons only and T&Cs are on other signs.
The second sign contains all the information and does not need to be posted next to the entrance signs.

Mystery1 is, IMO, more on the ball with the argument that as the Car Park was clearly marked for members only, and you weren't a member, there could be no contract.
As PE always claim breach of contract, and not trespass, their claim should be heading for a fail.

If you read the Court of Appeal case which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the facts were that 'around 20 signs were at the entrance to the car park.' I am just citing the facts in the Court of Appeal as it's written. In Penny's case only one was at the entrance to the car park. Btw, I made a mistake as I had presumed that Beavis won at the Court of Appeal hence the matter with the appellant term.

[Amethyst]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Thanks for the acknowledgment.

I am sure we'd sorted out this 20 signs at the entrance malarky on PM too ?