DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 67268--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 15, 2025, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> 2240500622
>
> [quote]
> [justify]The conduct of litigation in courts in England and
Wales is guided by an overriding objective which underpins the
entire Civil Procedure Rules framework and the Criminal
Procedure Rules. The primary purpose of the overriding objective
is to ensure that cases are dealt with justly and at
proportionate cost.
>
>
> While this Tribunal is not bound by either sets of the Rules,
there is absolutely no justification as to why parties and the
Tribunal should not conduct proceedings in line with the
overriding objective.
>
>
> When a Notice of Appeal is served by the Tribunal on the
enforcing authority, the Authority must respond with the service
of an evidence pack which will normally include its submissions
against points raised in the representations and the Notice of
Appeal. The Notice of Appeal in this case prevents the Authority
from doing anything but to respond to the representations. When
the Appellant serves a more substantive case, the Authority will
have to re-visit its case in case a further response is
required.
>
>
> In this and some other cases, the situation is made worse by a
party making a point which was never raised at the
representations stage or in the Notgice of Appeal. The authority
is obliged not just to re-visit its case, but to address the new
(often lengthy) arguments, and often at short notice.
>
>
> In some cases, one can understand readily an Appellant making
further submissions after the Authority has served its evidence
pack. This does not arise in this case. Apart from the copy of
the PCN, the original of which was with the Appellant, the
evidence pack had nothing to do with Mr Morgan’s argument.
Nothing prevented him from setting out his case fairly and
squarely when he prepared the Notice of Appeal.
>
>
> This delay on the service of the Appellant’s case obliges the
respondent authority to prepare their case twice. The informal
approach in this Tribunal is not carte blanche for Appellants
and their representatives to cause unnecessary work to the
Authority in direct contradiction to the overriding objective. I
dare say that if an authority having served its evidence pack,
then chose to make further and lengthy submissions without any
justification, there would be an uproar and a clamour for the
appeal to be allowed for this reason alone. Appellant do not
have a special privilege to behave differently. Adjudicators
will bear in mind their power to award costs if a party ‘s
conduct in making or resisting an appeal was wholly
unreasonable, irrespective of the outcome of an
appeal.[/justify]
>
--- End Quote ---
Mr.Chan indulging in a severe knuckle-rapping?
What becomes of standard advice to those registering an appeal
to put I rely on my earlier representations and full submission
to follow
let alone the current even terser comment?
re: Glasgow City Council v Upper Tribunal for Scotland [2025]
CSIH 2XA38/24
As I see it, the Court of Seesion was keen to stress the
particularity of the case before it:
59] The court would emphasise that its decision is based on the
particular facts of the
present case in which Mr Hamilton accepted that he received the
PCN and where it is clear
that he challenged it timeously.
Much seems to have turned on the fact that although the notice
was sent by ordinary post rather than the law's requirement of
some traceable delivery, the original appellant was not
disadvantaged by use of the ordinary post. One is left with
impression that had he been disadvantaged the Court may have
found differently.
[/quote]
[member=5]John U.K.[/member]
More of the same: 2250057474
#Post#: 67323--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 16, 2025, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And another: 225012277A. >:( :(
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page