Argument on Behalf of Dr.

Barbara Stryder (Appellant)

Introduction

1. 1.Preliminary Context: This appeal is brought by Dr. Barbara Stryder against the decision of the
High Court, which upheld a County Court judgment in favor of UStayUPay Parking Limited (the
“Respondent”). The core issue revolves around the applicability and fairness of parking charges
imposed on Dr. Stryder for parking on yellow lines within the hospital's car park.
2. 2.Appellant’s Position: Dr. Stryder contends that the parking charges are unenforceable due to a
legitimate expectation based on amended parking terms and the disproportionate nature of the
charges. Further, it is argued that the charges are penal and not representative of a genuine pre-
estimate of loss, thereby rendering them unfair and unconscionable.

Argument

1. 1.Legitimacy of Amended Parking Terms: The amended parking terms, introduced by James
Lamarr, were visible and known to the hospital staff, creating a legitimate expectation. In
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, the court upheld the
principle of promissory estoppel, where a promise made should be honored if the other party
has relied on it. Dr. Stryder relied on the amended terms, which permitted parking on yellow
lines for staff permit holders, and hence, should not be penalized for adhering to these terms.
2. 2.Unfairness of Original Terms in Changed Circumstances: The original terms became impractical
and unfair when the staff parking bays were closed due to construction. In Interfoto Picture
Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433, the court emphasized the
importance of fairness in contractual terms, particularly in situations where terms become
unreasonable or oppressive in changed circumstances.
3. 3.Proportionality and Unconscionability of the Parking Charge: The magnitude of the Parking
Charge (£750) is disproportionate and penal in nature, deviating from the principle of a genuine
pre-estimate of loss. This is contrary to the principles established in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co
Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79, where it was held that a charge representing a
genuine pre-estimate of loss is likely to be upheld, whereas a penal charge, which aims only to
deter, is not enforceable.
4. 4.Inconsistency in Enforcement and Lack of Transparency: The inconsistency in the enforcement
of the parking terms, particularly after the replacement of Mr. Lamarr, highlights a lack of
transparency and unfair practice by the Respondent. This aligns with the principles in Parker v
South Eastern Railway Company (1877) 2 CPD 416, where terms must be adequately
communicated and consistently applied to be enforceable.

Conclusion

1. Final Submission: In light of the arguments and legal authorities presented, it is submitted that
the appeal by Dr. Stryder should be upheld. The parking charges, given the circumstances of
their imposition and their penal nature, are unenforceable. The amended terms, having been
relied upon by Dr. Stryder, should be recognized as valid for the period during which they were
displayed and adhered to by the hospital staff.
The significance of the cases used in the Appellant’s arguments lies in their establishment of key legal
principles relevant to contract law, which are applied to challenge the enforceability of the parking
charges against Dr. Barbara Stryder. Each case brings a specific aspect of contract law to the forefront:

Promissory estoppel, or the doctrine of estoppel (there are various forms), is a legal principle designed
to stop a party from going back on a promise that they have made to another party that has relied on it
to their detriment.

1. **Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130**:

- **Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel**: This case is pivotal in the development of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel in English law. The court ruled that if one party to a contract makes a promise to
the other that they will not enforce their legal rights and the other party relies on that promise, the first
party may be prevented (estopped) from going back on their word. This principle is significant in
situations where one party changes their position in reliance on a promise, even if there’s no
consideration for the promise.

- **Applicability**: In the context of Dr. Stryder’s case, this principle supports the argument that she
had a legitimate expectation based on the amended parking terms introduced by the temporary
contractor and relied upon them, which should prevent the Respondent from enforcing the original,
stricter terms.

2. **Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79**:

- **Penalty Clauses vs. Liquidated Damages**: This case established a critical distinction between
penalty clauses and liquidated damages in contract law. A penalty is a payment that is
disproportionately large compared to the actual harm or potential loss, intended to deter breach, and is
generally unenforceable. Liquidated damages, on the other hand, are seen as a genuine pre-estimate of
loss and are enforceable.

- **Applicability**: For Dr. Stryder’s appeal, this case is used to argue that the £750 parking charge is a
penalty rather than a legitimate pre-estimate of loss, thereby rendering it unenforceable.

3. **Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433**:

- **Fairness and Notice in Contractual Terms**: This case highlights the requirement for fairness in
contractual terms, especially for onerous or unusual terms. It established that such terms must be
adequately brought to the attention of the contracting party.

- **Applicability**: In Dr. Stryder’s situation, this precedent supports the argument that the original
parking terms, especially under the changed circumstances (closure of staff parking bays), became
unreasonable or oppressive, and their enforcement would thus be unfair.
These cases collectively bolster Dr. Stryder’s appeal by providing legal grounds to challenge the fairness
and enforceability of the parking charges, framing the argument within established principles of contract
law.

To create a rebuttal against the Respondent’s (UStayUPay Parking Limited) arguments from the
perspective of the Appellant (Dr. Barbara Stryder), we should focus on countering their key points
regarding the enforceability of parking charges, validity of original terms, and the proportionality of the
parking charge. Here’s a structured rebuttal:

**Rebuttal on Behalf of Dr. Barbara Stryder (Appellant)**

1. **Counter to Enforceability of Parking Charges**:

- **Respondent’s Argument**: The parking charges are enforceable under the precedent set in
*ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67*.

- **Rebuttal**: The *Beavis* case is distinguishable. In *Beavis*, the charge was for overstaying in a
free parking lot, serving a clear purpose in deterring overstaying and managing parking space. Here, Dr.
Stryder complied with the amended terms visible and relied upon by staff, thus her actions did not
constitute a breach warranting a deterrent.

2. **Challenge to Validity of Original Terms**:

- **Respondent’s Argument**: The original terms are binding, and amendments by James Lamarr are
invalid as per *Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] UKSC 24*.

- **Rebuttal**: The situation differs significantly. Lamarr’s amendments were not a formal contractual
variation but a necessary adjustment to an unforeseen situation (construction work). These
amendments were visible and enforced for a significant period, creating a reasonable expectation (refer
to *Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130*).

3. **Disputing Proportionality and Fairness of Contract Terms**:

- **Respondent’s Argument**: The charges are proportionate and comply with the Consumer Rights
Act 2015, as per *Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc [2001] UKHL 52*.

- **Rebuttal**: The original terms became impractical and unfair due to the construction work. The
substantial Parking Charge of £750 is disproportionate, not reflecting any genuine pre-estimate of loss
but serving as a penalty. This violates the principles in *Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage &
Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79* and lacks the element of fairness emphasized in *Interfoto Picture Library
Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433*.
**Conclusion**:

- The Respondent’s arguments fail to acknowledge the changed circumstances and the reasonable
expectations set by the amended terms. The disproportionate nature of the Parking Charge and
the lack of a genuine pre-estimate of loss render the charge unenforceable. Therefore, the appeal
by Dr. Stryder stands on strong legal grounds and should be upheld.

This rebuttal is designed to directly counter the key points raised by the Respondent, using relevant legal
precedents and principles to support Dr. Stryder’s position. It aims to demonstrate that the unique
circumstances of this case, particularly the reliance on amended terms and the disproportionate nature
of the charges, justify overturning the previous decision.

Paragraph 10 Mr lamar left replaced by Mrs decorsio

To construct a legal argument against the actions of Geraldine Decorsio for the appellant, Dr. Barbara
Stryder, we must focus on the legal principles of notice, reliance, and the reasonable expectations of the
appellant based on the visible, amended signage in the parking area. Here's how the argument can be
structured:

---

**Legal Argument for Dr. Barbara Stryder (Appellant) Against Geraldine Decorsio's Actions**

1. **Importance of Actual Notice**:

- **Argument**: The law requires that the terms of a contract, especially those that are subject to
change, must be effectively communicated to and noticed by all parties involved. In the case of the
parking area, the actual signage displayed constitutes the enforceable terms. Ms. Decorsio's failure to
observe the amended signs, which were the visible terms at the time, undermines the principle of notice
central to contract law.

2. **Reliance on Amended Terms**:

- **Argument**: Dr. Stryder, along with other hospital staff, relied on the amended terms that were
clearly displayed and enforced for a considerable period. This reliance forms a key aspect of contract
law, as established in *Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130*, where
parties acted on a promise or an apparent change in terms. The appellant's reliance on the visible terms
was reasonable and in good faith.

3. **Responsibility of the Parking Management**:

- **Argument**: It is the responsibility of UStayUPay, and by extension, its employees, to be aware of

the current and actual terms enforced in the parking area. Ms. Decorsio's lack of awareness does not
negate the fact that the amended terms, regardless of their formal status, were the ones being enforced
and relied upon by users of the parking facility.

4. **Inconsistency in Enforcement**:

- **Argument**: The sudden shift back to the original terms without proper notice or communication
to the users of the car park, as evidenced by Ms. Decorsio's actions, represents an inconsistency in
enforcement. This inconsistency leads to unfair and unpredictable outcomes, which is against the
principles of fairness and reasonableness in contract enforcement.

**Conclusion**:

- The actions of Ms. Decorsio, in enforcing the original terms without acknowledging the amended
terms that were displayed and relied upon, were legally inappropriate. The lack of proper notice and the
reliance of Dr. Stryder on the amended terms make the enforcement of the original parking charges
against her unfair and potentially unenforceable. Therefore, the appellant's challenge against the
parking charges should be considered valid and justifiable.

---

This argument positions Dr. Stryder's appeal within the context of fundamental legal principles such as
notice, reliance, and fairness in the enforcement of contractual terms. It underscores the importance of
these principles in determining the validity of the parking charges imposed on her.