Case No: K0DP5J30

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER

Manchester Civil Justice Centre (Civil and Family Courts)

1 Bridge Street
Manchester
M60 9DJ

BEFORE:

HER HONOUR JUDGE EVANS

BETWEEN:
CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD APPELLANT

- and -

CHARLES AKANDE RESPONDENT

Legal Representation
Mrs Susan Davis (Solicitor) on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Jackson Yamba (Advocate) on behalf of the Respondent

Other Parties Present and their status

None known

Judgment

Judgment date: 10 May 2024

(start and end times cannot be noted due to audio format)

Reporting Restrictions Applied: No

“WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if
the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of
the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means
of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law
for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction
is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what
information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.”

“This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in
accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.”

Number of folios in transcript 21

Number of words in transcript 1,508
Her Honour Judge Evans:

1. This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Goodchild on 31 October of

last year when she struck out the Claimant’s claim on the basis that the statements of
case did not comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. It proceeds by way of permission
from His Honour Judge Khan. He gave permission on grounds 1 and 3, although it is
only ground 1 which is pursued by Mrs Davis before me today.

2. Ground 1 is that the judge was wrong in finding that the claim failed to comply with
paragraph 7.5(e) of Practice Direction 16. That is the part of the Practice Direction
which sets out what has to be in the particulars of claim in a contractual case where it
is alleged that the contract was formed by conduct.

3. This is a parking claim. The Particulars of Claim plead in the short form online
document that there was a PCN for a contractual breach. It gave the date and the place
and the registration number of the vehicle, and it said that the driver had failed to
comply with the terms and conditions displayed.

4. At paragraph 11 of her judgment the learned district judge said that in breach of
paragraph 7.5 of PD16, the conduct and the breach alleged were not set out. The PD
does not in fact require the breach to be set out. In my judgment the Particulars of
Claim did comply with paragraph 7.5(e) of PD 16 because it is clear that the case is
that the Defendant has accepted the displayed terms and conditions by parking on the
site.

That is not the end of the matter, though, because when one reads the ex tempore
judgment as a whole, it is absolutely clear that the district judge found that the
Particulars of Claim did not comply with the requirements of Part 16.

5. Part 16 requires in the first place for the Particulars of Claim to contain a concise
statement of the facts relied upon. Paragraph 7 of PD16 imposes additional
requirements for particulars kinds of case, but it does not take away the basic
requirement to set out a concise statement of the facts relied upon.

6. The district judge said at paragraph 5 of her judgment that she did not accept there was
sufficient set out in the claim form to enable the court and in particular the Defendant
to understand the nature of the breach alleged. She identified at paragraph 9 that an
allegation of breach and the nature of the breach rather than a simple assertion of
breach of terms and conditions is fundamental to a claim of this nature.

7. She identified that there are a number of different ways in which a defendant might
breach the terms and conditions in a car park: for example, not displaying a ticket,
overstaying, not parking within the correct area for parking. She noted that these
Particulars of Claim do not specify which of those, if any, or which other breach was
said to have been committed by this Defendant.

8. In my judgment, she is plainly right about that. Particulars of Claim have to set out the
basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. The Defendant
cannot possibly plead his Defence because he does not know what the contractual term
is said to be that he has breached and he does not know how he is said to have breached
it. He cannot put in a Defence that says “I bought a ticket” if, for example, the breach

Page 2 of 4
 that is being alleged is that he parked in the wrong place. The district judge was right
to take the view that the Particulars of Claim are wholly inadequate.

9. Mrs Davis says the problem for claimants in this kind of case is that the Money Claims
Online system only allows 1,080 characters and so there is not enough space to set out
all of the details of the terms and conditions and the breach. She says it would be
disproportionate for a parking company in every case of this nature to have to serve
detailed Particulars of Claim.

10. It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out
the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character
limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many characters to say “did not
buy a ticket” or “did not display permit” but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into
the 1080 character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim. A
complaint that that is disproportionate is one which should be taken up with HMCTS
and/or the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.

11. Mrs Davis submitted that a driver will already have received a penalty charge notice
before proceedings begin and so will already know what they are said to have done
wrong and therefore it is unnecessary to specify the breach in the Particulars of Claim.
That point has no merit. The fact that a claimant’s case has been set out in a letter of
claim pre-action (as it will be in the vast majority of cases) does not mean that
pleadings are unnecessary or that the requirements of the CPR can be ignored. The
Court of Appeal have consistently reaffirmed that the issues in a case are defined by
the pleadings.

12. For all of those reasons, in my judgment, the district judge was, as I say, not only not
wrong but she was correct. The appeal is dismissed.

(proceedings continue)

13. So far as the Respondent’s costs are concerned, leaving aside the question of
attendance at the hearing which I will come back to, the rest of it I allow as claimed.
It seems to me entirely reasonable and proportionate and although Mrs Davis has made
some criticism of the number of hours taken by Mr Yamba, he is of course only a grade
D fee earner and the argument, I think, probably has to go both ways in terms of
whether somebody is qualified or not qualified. So, for a grade D fee earner the amount
of time spent seems to me to be reasonable.

14. So far as the cost of his attendance at the hearing is concerned, Mr Yamba appeared at
this hearing to represent the Respondent without in fact having a right of audience. It
is only because Mrs Davis raised the issue that that became apparent. He did not
prospectively make an application for a right of audience before me. I granted him a
right of audience today, but it is plainly a breach of the rules. If I had not granted him
a right of audience, I would not have adjourned the appeal as it would have been
disproportionate. The consequence would have been that the Respondent would not
have been represented at the hearing; the Appellant still would not have succeeded on
the appeal, but there would have been nobody here even to ask for a costs order.
Having regard to the conduct of the Respondent’s representatives in terms of the right
of audience point, I am not going to allow anything for the attendance.

Page 3 of 4
 This Transcript has been approved by the Judge.

The Transcription Agency hereby certifies that the above is an

accurate and complete recording of the proceedings or part thereof.

The Transcription Agency, 24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5AT
Tel: 01303 230038
Email: [email protected]

Page 4 of 4