The appellant challenged the defendant’s order imposing parking charges for motor-cycles. He challenged the assertion that the charges were properly part of a traffic management scheme, and secondly he attacked the findings of the respondent’s cost benefit analysis.
Held: Permission to appeal was refused. The respondent had properly sought to balance the costs of traffic management between the various road users. As to the financial analysis: ‘ the financial material in the relevant reports was no more and no less than forecasting, assembled in good faith. When errors occurred and were realised, they were rectified. If others remained, they were not of a nature or quality with the potential to vitiate the 2010 Order.’
Judges:
Maurice Kay VP, Smith, Moore-Bick LJJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Civ 432
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Djanogly v City of Westminster Admn 16-Jul-2010
The claimant challenged the validity of parking orders made by the Council, in the imposition of charges for motor-cycles.
Held: The challenge was rejected. Pitchford LJ said: ‘ It seems to me almost self-evident that there will be a need to . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Local Government
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432837
