Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis

Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis

The parking charge is not extravagant or unconscionable, is commercially and socially justifiable, and does not breach the requirements of good faith or create a significant imbalance under the Regulations; therefore, it is enforceable.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: ParkingEye Limited; Defendant/appellant: Barry Beavis; Intervener: The Consumers’ Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Penalty Clauses, Unfair Contract Terms, Parking Charges, Commercial Justification
Contract Law Consumer Protection Penalty Clauses Unfair Contract Terms Parking Charges Commercial Justification

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ParkingEye Limited

Claimant/respondent

Barry Beavis

Defendant/appellant

The Consumers’ Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the £85 parking charge is an unenforceable penalty at common law
  2. 2 Whether the parking charge is unfair and unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The parking charge is not extravagant or unconscionable, is commercially and socially justifiable, and does not breach the requirements of good faith or create a significant imbalance under the Regulations; therefore, it is enforceable.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The judgment in favour of ParkingEye Limited is upheld.
  • Mr. Beavis is liable to pay the £85 parking charge.