Maitland, R (on the application of) v Parking Appeals Service & Anor

Maitland, R (on the application of) v Parking Appeals Service & Anor

The decision of the second adjudicator was lawful and within the range of reasonable responses; the new evidence could have been produced earlier and does not justify permission to apply for judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Maitland; Defendant: Parking Appeals Service; Interested Party: London Borough of Camden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for permission to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Parking Regulations, Costs
Administrative Law Traffic Law Judicial Review Parking Regulations Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Maitland

Claimant

Parking Appeals Service

Defendant

London Borough of Camden

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator erred in refusing a review of the parking decision
  2. 2 Whether new evidence justified permission to apply for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The decision of the second adjudicator was lawful and within the range of reasonable responses; the new evidence could have been produced earlier and does not justify permission to apply for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Costs order in favour of the defendant in the sum of £1,600 inclusive