3. TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)  (Read 2259 times)

0 Members and 23 Guests are viewing this topic.

TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)
« on: »
From the Royal Courts of Justice daily cause list 26 October 2023

BEFORE JUSTICE SWIFT                                                10:30AM              COURT   1     AC-2023-LON-002373   The King (on the application of TRANSPORT FOR LONDON) v LONDON TRIBUNALS   (ENVIRONMENT AND TRAFFIC ADJUDICA    HEARING

As far I can see it is open to the public, should anyone be interested.             
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)
« Reply #1 on: »
All High Court hearings are open to the public unless the court has specifically ordered a private hearing, which would be in very limited circumstances such as matters involving national security and a few other scenarios where the need to maintain confidentiality overrides the open justice principle.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators) UPDATE
« Reply #2 on: »
These sites carry reports. The first is regularly updated.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/transport-for-london-tfl-high-court-parking-tickets-cctv-b1116055.html#comments-area
Similar to Standard but less adverts
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tfl-could-refund-500-000-065411720.html

No mention of barrister or case for LT - sounds as if CPS had to make their own case?

Case concluded 4p.m,. judgement reserved - expected in a few weeks.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2023, 04:42:28 pm by John U.K. »
Logged
Re: TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)
« Reply #3 on: »
See they are still unwilling/unable to let Ivan speak although his client company can. Relegating him to a Mackenzie Friend because he isn't a lawyer is really pathetic given he and phantomcrusader spotted the glitch and Ivan developed the legal defence which resulted in this HC case.

Mike
Logged
Re: TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)
« Reply #4 on: »
Quote from: MMV Redux on November 02, 2023, 05:40:05 pm
See they are still unwilling/unable to let Ivan speak although his client company can. Relegating him to a Mackenzie Friend because he isn't a lawyer is really pathetic given he and phantomcrusader spotted the glitch and Ivan developed the legal defence which resulted in this HC case.

Mike

The reason (as I understand it) is that unqualified representatives aren’t generally given a right of audience because they don’t owe professional duties to the court or their client. I’m sure there are more reasons and that it varies on a case by case basis but that is the general position.
Logged
I am not qualified to give legal advice in the UK. While I will do my best to help you, you should not rely on my advice as if it was given by a lawyer qualified in the UK.
Re: TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)
« Reply #5 on: »
Then whatever ETA defence there is (is there one?) should call him as a material witness. Otherwise, with the greatest respect, he becomes the elephant in the room.

If Ivan was the reason behind the ETA acceptance of the CCTV defence and was responsible for an avalanche of successful cases I cannot appreciate the judge's remarks that there are no "exceptional circumstances" to grant him audience.

This attitude reflects what the TfL lawyers tried to do in an earlier meeting--"not legally qualified,therefore we are not listening to him and by the way he can not charge a fee".

This completely ignores the ETA judicial process that lay people can represent others in sometimes complex legal hearings. I find the remark by the judge that Ivan's client company should have engaged a lawyer to be rather a sad reflection of how ETA operates.

Surely there must be a way for Ivan to address the Court?

Mike
Logged
Re: TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)
« Reply #6 on: »
It's a bit late for that, but it occurred to me on the day that I should have got a PCN of my own so that I could be joined as a party. You live and learn.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)
« Reply #7 on: »
I attended and I regard it as disgraceful. 
Logged
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. TfL v. LT (EAT Adjudicators)