PRESS RELEASE EMBARGOED UNTIL APRIL 16th
Do not read this before April 16th
HHJ Moloney's judgment has now been overturned in the court of appeal.
The Prankster welcomes the Court of Appeal decision which provided much needed clarity on the issue. The judgment sets a precedent as it now becomes case law and will be referred to by other Courts in matters of a similar nature. However, in some cases, everything will still be as clear as mud.
Lord Justice Briggs commented: “But in my opinion the judge's finding... was based upon a view of the law for which there is no authority, which is wrong in principle and the recognition of which would have most unfortunate consequences.”
The full decision is available here.
Happy Parking
(and of course I am not called) The Parking Prankster (for nothing)
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete:-)
DeleteVery funny, are we expecting the judgment tomorrow then?
DeleteApologies but can you clarify the relevance for parking issues? I can't find the original history behind a 'Maloney' case.
ReplyDeletePP can I refer you to Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)
ReplyDeletefor those that have not read this ruling http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm
:-)
DeleteNeil - I think Parky was having a bit of a prankster moment by making it look as this was the result of the Beavis appeal that so many people are waiting for.
ReplyDeleteAhh, sorry, sense of humour misfire. I have my case against PE today, so feeling twitchy.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about the link?
ReplyDeleteIt is taking me to an insurance claim appeal
Oh blimey - best of luck with that then Neil. Is it a court case?
ReplyDeleteIt was a small claims case - case stayed pending the 'Beavis' appeal -annoying!
Delete@Neil Hammond. DJ Bell has done more of these than DJ Beck. Good luck and take Beavis with you
ReplyDeleteYes, I had Beck and it was obvious he had no previous experience. He told PEs people to list it for half a day if they decide to re-list, which I'm guessing they'll only do if they win the appeal.
DeleteHilarious! Especially PP's regurgitation of the BPA double-speak Press Release which they stupidly allowed to escape so prematurely.
ReplyDeleteGood one Pranky :) Getting impatient to hear the outcome of the beavis appeal now!
ReplyDeleteHaving openly ridiculed the BPA Ltd for their 'facts', I've just realised I've been getting my news from someone who calls himself The Parking Prankster.
ReplyDeleteEpic Facepalm
Delete:-)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesense we are annoyed with an ATA this morning?
ReplyDeleteArtful Tricksters Alliance?
DeleteActually, as so many people are awaiting the outcome I don't really see the "funny" side of this.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's just me (and I haven't even got an ongoing case), but I consider it a serious and very fundamental issue. Not something to be treated with levity.
Sorry - will relinquish the soapbox now.
Actually, although it's a bit of a Prankster wind up, there is a serious point to all this.
DeleteThe Judgment in the link above was handed down very recently at the CoA, and the LJs have comprehensively rubbished Moloney's original Judgment in that case. This is not the first time his decisions have been overturned on appeal, and he does have a reputation as a bit of a maverick, who tries to create new law from the bench of a County Court.
We wait to see if the LJs considering the Beavis case will take a similar approach.
You would think if the judges felt that his decision "was based upon a view of the law for which there is no authority, which is wrong in principle and the recognition of which would have most unfortunate consequences", the case would have been a fairly simple one to decide and we would have had a decision by now.
Deleteobvious you did not see the stupid press release by the BPA on the 2nd april , scroll down the page and read the stupid NON story ,
ReplyDeleteI did indeed see the press release. Perhaps this posting should have been placed as a response to that?
ReplyDeleteI see what The Prankster has done here. In opening the post with "Do not read this before April 16th", he has duped us all into a contractual agreement which we are all in breach of. I'm not worried though as I have just downloaded The ParkingEye Guide to Defending a Parking Prankster Court Claim from Amazon dot com.
ReplyDeleteI see another record breaking visits to the website coming up lol
ReplyDelete