Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court heard a consolidated appeal arising from two earlier Court of Appeal decisions, cited as [2013] EWCA Civ 1539 and [2015] EWCA Civ 402. The named Appellant was “Company A” and the Respondent was “Defendant.” The excerpt supplied also refers to a parking-management company (“Company B”) that operated a customer car park with a two-hour free-parking limit and an £85 charge for overstaying. The proceedings reached the Supreme Court and were argued before a seven-member panel during July 2015, with judgment handed down on 4 November 2015.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an £85 charge imposed on motorists who exceed a two-hour free-parking limit amounts to taking unfair advantage of consumers using an attractively located car park.

Arguments of the Parties

Company B’s Arguments

• The £85 charge was not set at an unusually high level given the location of the car park.
• Motorists receive the benefit of two hours of free parking and remain in full control of whether they exceed the time limit.
• An internal appeals procedure is available for drivers who consider that unusual circumstances justify overstaying.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The excerpted paragraph (para 112) records that the court considered the proportionality of the £85 charge. It noted evidence showing that the fee had not been inflated merely because of the car park’s desirable location. The court also accepted submissions by Attorney [Kirk] that customers benefit from free parking for two hours and remain able to avoid the charge by leaving on time or using the appeals process in exceptional situations.

Holding and Implications

This information was not available in the provided opinion.