‘A senior druid has won the right to take a charity to court over “pay-to-pray” parking charges for the Summer Solstice at Stonehenge, claiming it should be free.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th January 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘An artificial-intelligence lawyer chatbot has successfully contested 160,000 parking tickets across London and New York for free, showing that chatbots can actually be useful.’
The Guardian, 28th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Winterburn and another v Bennett and another [2016] EWCA Civ 482
‘The claimant owners of a fish and chip shop claimed as a result of use over a number of years to have acquired by prescription the right for themselves and others using their premises to park on land comprising part of a car park belonging to the defendants. The defendants’ premises, which were next to the car park, had been used as a club and users of those premises used the car park. The entrance to the car park was adjacent to the claimants’ shop. The claimants had operated the shop from about 1987 or 1988 until 2012. Throughout that time, their suppliers had up to nine times a week pulled off the road into the disputed part of the car park and parked there for long enough to make their deliveries, and their customers had parked on the disputed land while they bought their fish and chips. On the whole that use of part of the car park did not interfere with the s’ operations but over a seven-year period there were 12 to 15 occasions on which the defendants asserted ownership of the disputed land, and, expressly or impliedly, asserted that the claimants and their suppliers and customers had no right to park on it. At all times until 2007 there was a sign attached to the wall of the building on one side of the entranceway to the car park, erected on behalf of the defendants, stating “Private car park. For the use of Club patrons only. By order of the Committee”, and a similar sign in the window of the club premises. The claimants claimed that their right to park, acquired by prescription by “lost modern grant”, had been established by their 20 years’ uninterrupted user “as of right”, namely, without force, without secrecy and without permission. The First-tier Tribunal found that, although the two signs were clearly visible, they were insufficient to prevent the claimants from acquiring the claimed parking rights. The Upper Tribunal allowed the defendants’ appeal, reversing that finding.’
WLR Daily, 25th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Drivers could face fines of up to £70 for parking on the pavement as ministers reportedly look to extend the ban outside of London to the rest of England.’
The Independent, 18th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘MP Simon Danczuk has been ordered to repay thousands of pounds after admitting an expenses claims “error”.’
BBC News, 18th March 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Student entrepreneur who created donotpay.co.uk has launched automated lawyer to help people challenge unfair fines.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th January 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has provided long awaited clarification of the law on penalty clauses and liquidated damages, upholding the “penalty rule” but further limiting its utility in a commercial setting. In the adjoined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis the Supreme Court created a new authority for consideration of the penalty rule doctrine, termed by Lordships Neuberger and Sumption to be “an ancient, haphazardly constructed edifice which has not weathered well”.’
RPC Built Environment, 6th January 2016
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Reports of the decision of the Supreme Court in the joined appeals in Cavendish Square and ParkingEye left me confused because some reckoned the decision represented a narrowing of the application of the penalty doctrine whilst others considered it had expanded the doctrine’s scope. So on a wet weekend afternoon I took hold of a copy of the Judgment – [2015] UKSC 67- and tasked myself to find out. Here is what I found.’
Employment Law Blog, 23rd November 2015
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘This week the UK Supreme Court gave a single decision on a pair of wildly different cases. They involved a chip shop owner overstaying in a retail car park and the heavily negotiated sale of a substantial Middle Eastern advertising group. (Cavendish Square v El Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis) Why? Because they both concerned the idea of a penalty clause – very roughly, a clause that is unenforceable because it imposes an exorbitant obligation to pay on a party that breaches a contract.’
Technology Law Update, 6th November 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘A local authority has been ordered to pay more than £200,000 after a man died when his car drove into a horizontal swing barrier gate to a car park at a sports ground.’
Local Government Lawyer, 14th September 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Lawyers are in a legal slug-fest in the Supreme Court trying to determine if the English law on penalties has any place in the modern commercial world.’
The Independent, 23rd July 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Never, it seems, should you underestimate the British public’s hatred of parking charges. When Barry Beavis, an Essex chip shop owner, asked the public for money to help take his appeal against an £85 parking ticket to the highest court in the land, he doubted he would get anything.’
The Independent, 3rd May 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A parking charge of £85 imposed once a motorist overstayed a permitted two-hour period of free parking was not extravagant or unconscionable in the circumstances and was enforceable at law.’
WLR Daily, 23rd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A dispute over a parking fine has received a lot of press attention from the angle of the aggrieved motorist standing up to big business. But there are wider implications. The recent Court of Appeal decision in ParkingEye v Beavis demonstrates a more flexible approach to penalty clauses in contracts, and illustrates how the unfairness rules will be applied to penalty charges in consumer-facing contracts (EULAs, e-commerce terms etc).’
Technology Law Update, 28th April 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘A chip shop owner has lost his Court of Appeal challenge over what he claimed were “unfair, unlawful and disproportionate” parking charges.’
BBC News, 23rd April 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Barry Beavis is in court with the aim of striking a blow “for every motorist, in every car park”.’
The Independent, 24th February 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Millions of pounds of parking fines could have been charged illegally, according to the RAC Foundation.’
BBC News, 20th February 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A Smart car owner has won a year-long battle over a £50 parking ticket given because she parked at a right angle to the kerb. But what is the law, asks Chris Stokel-Walker.’
BBC News, 17th December 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A revised Local Government Transparency Code is to come into force in England next month, the Department for Communities and Local Government has announced.’
Local Government, 3rd October 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Motorists could demand the refund of more than £100m in parking fines, after what experts described as an “explosive” tribunal ruling left local government traffic officials in “absolute panic”.’
The Independent, 21st September 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023