Below are some quotes from the ruling which effectively legitimises parking charges for breach of contract on private land.
Para39. In the end, I am satisfied that in this case, the amount payable by the appellant is not extravagant or unconscionable and that the court should therefore not decline to enforce the contract. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
34. The important questions, so far as the Regulations (Unfair trading) are concerned, are (i) whether ParkingEye acted contrary to the requirements of good faith in imposing a charge of £85 for overstaying the free period, and, (ii) if so, whether that term caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the motorist. The judge held that there was no breach of the duty of good faith since the terms of the contract were prominently displayed and clear to any motorist who might wish to use the car park. He also held that the term did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations because the charge was no greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park.