Thursday, 24 July 2014

Judiciary show lack of technical competence in Cambridge

Ironically for Cambridge with its reputation from both university and industry, technical competence does not seem to have spilled over into the judiciary.

Sadly, one defendant fell afoul of this in Cambridge County Court recently. His case was initially stayed to await the result of Beavis and Wardley case. Once they stay was lifted ParkingEye submitted a late addition to the documents quoting the judgment of HHJ Moloney in ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. The defendant responded well before the hearing date, stating that as he suffered from anxiety he would like the case to be heard on papers without his presence. He provided the court with the copy of HHJ Moloney's leave to appeal, stated that several other cases had been postponed and asked for his case to be postponed once again until after the appeal was heard.

Sadly, the judge on the day, DDJ Tattersall, does not appear to know how to look up cases on the court system, stating that as far as the court knew, the case had not been appealed. He refused leave to adjourn and ruled for the claimant.

Of course, anyone with an internet connection can look up case progress at this link by entering the name 'Beavis'

This would have immediately confirmed that the appeal was listed and was due for a hearing between November 2014 and March 2015.

It seems that DDJ Tattersall either does not know how to use the internet, or does not know how to use the Ministry of Justice's own system. The Prankster hopes that the judge is signed up for remedial training as soon as possible.

ParkingEye cannot remain unscrutinised for their part in proceedings. ParkingEye are of course well aware that the case is being appealed, having received a sealed copy of the appeal almost a month before the hearing date. It is not known whether DDJ Tattershall asked the ParkingEye solicitor whether the case was being appealed. If not, then the competence of the judge must be called into question. If the judge did, then the integrity of the ParkingEye solicitor or the person compiling their brief needs to be closely examined.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Is that some sort of mistrial if the judge has not been all that clever?

    1. It certainly warrants the defendant to submit an Application on N244 asking for the order to be set aside. But this will cost another £155 and most people will simply give up. This is why the current small claims system is not really fit for purpose because companies can simply play the game and most people fold. Sad story again.

  2. It would appear that Tattersal although a Judge is technically incompetent. He should be ashamed of himself.