Site icon swarb.co.uk

Arthur and Another v Anker and Another: CA 1997

Consent required for parking charge

The owners of a private car park engaged the defendants to prevent unauthorised parking. The defendants erected notices which warned of wheel clamping. Mr Arthur had parked knowing he was not entitled to park and of the consequences. Mr Arthur’s car was clamped. He brought proceedings against the defendants for damages for tortious interference with his car. The defendants counterclaimed having refused to pay the pounds 40 fee the plaintiff returned and succeeded in removing his car with the two clamps. The defendants ran two defences: he had consented to his car being clamped, so as to excuse otherwise tortious act of the defendants. Second, that the defendants had seized the car damage feasant.
Held: What must be established is a consent freely given and which extended to the conduct of which the plaintiff now complains. The judge had found that Mr Arthur knew of and consented to the risk. But it was argued that the demand for payment amounted to blackmail and this crime negated the consent. The requirement of payment did not amount to blackmail. By accepting the clamping risk Mr Arthur also accepted that it would remain clamped until he paid the reasonable cost of clamping and de-clamping. He consented not only to the otherwise tortious act of clamping the car but also to the otherwise tortious action of detaining the car until payment. ‘I would not accept that the clamper could exact any unreasonable or exorbitant charge for releasing the car, and the court would be very slow to find implied acceptance of such a charge. That would also apply to conduct which would cause damage. The clamper may not detain the car after the owner has indicated willingness to pay. The fee was reasonable. Mr Arthur consented to what occurred and he cannot now complain.’ The court dismissed the appeal so far as it rested on consent.

Sir Thomas Bingham, MR, Neill and Hirst LJJ
[1997] QB 564
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedVine v London Borough of Waltham Forest CA 5-Apr-2000
The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land, Road Traffic

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.180661

Exit mobile version