header-logo header-logo

The meaning of “penalty”

30 April 2015
Issue: 7650 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A parking charge for overstayers is not a “penalty” and therefore enforceable, the Court of Appeal has held.

In Parkingeye v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402, Beavis was charged £85 after overstaying in a free car park. Parkingeye brought small claims proceedings when Beavis did not pay.

The court rejected Beavis’ arguments that the charge was a penalty and therefore unenforceable at common law, and was unfair and therefore unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Delivering his judgment, Sir Timothy Lloyd said that an intention to deter was not enough to make the charge a penalty: “The term must in itself amount to something which is extravagant and unconscionable if it is to be found invalid under the rules about contractual penalties.” However, he said the charge would have been a penalty if it had been “grossly disproportionate”.

Issue: 7650 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll