Lewes Judgment overruled original HHJ harvey overturned due to Bias

[brassnecked]

OPS got it overturned, and original victor gets hit with £3,700 costs order  details in link and also link to the MSE browntrout thread.

 

https://www.gofundme.com/f/much-ado-about-nothing-urgent-help-for-norma?d=:signedDonationId&utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email_m_pd-5332-donation-receipt-adyen&utm_content=internal

[brassnecked]

Would be worth checking out the link and other background

[lookinforinfo]

To refute the £60 charge  we could use the example below. It is based on the ruling with Parking Eye v Somerfield which was held in the Court of Appeal and therefore binding on lower Courts and may well be why PE has not until recently started adding £60 to their costs though it could be DCBL doing it on their own. If done correctly most sensible parking companies would drop the charge before it got to Court though I don't know of any sensible Parking company that appears on our Forum.

 

  The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield

 

 a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

 ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis.

 

On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html#para414

 

Section 414 to 428 are the relevant ones relating to penalties.

 

[brassnecked]

Looks like that wioll have to be the way to challenge the Unicorn feed tax for now