Ronald and John Popely and Another v D G Scott (Kent County Council): Admn 21 Dec 2000

This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellants were alleged to have offered timeshare contracts without notification of cancellation rights. A director claimed he was unfit to attend, but the trial proceeded in his absence. He had, the day before, attended a conference with counsel.
Held: Given the medical evidence before them, the magistrates should undoubtedly have allowed an adjournment. The schemes had been constructed so that the purchaser bought shares in a company rather than simply a timeshare. However the magistrates were correct to conclude that this was a timeshare agreement dressed as a share agreement. The magistrates had not effectively considered the opinions of counsel obtained by the respondent and which were capable of establishing a due diligence defence.


Lord Justice Rose And The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty


[2000] EWHC Admin 441




Timeshare Act 1992, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Bolton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Merna; Regina v Richmond Justices, ex parte Haines 1991
The divisional court should intervene where a defendant has been deprived of a fair opportunity to present his case because of his own unavoidable absence. . .
CitedRegina v Chippenham Justices ex parte Harris QBD 28-Jan-1994
. .
CitedRegina v Birmingham City Magistrates’ Court ex parte David Frank Booth Admn 12-May-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Consumer, Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135629