Read that a barrister, Clive Wolman, lost a case yesterday in the Court of Appeal regarding a footway parking loophole which we established back in 2004.
Here is the BBC report on our original case, where we established in the Parking And Traffic Appeals Service that a literal interpretation of footway parking law is the correct interpretation (that one or more wheels have to be on the footway. If neither wheel is touching the footway, no contravention has occurred.)
As I understand it, PATAS rulings are not precedent-setting (i.e. another court can decide on their own interpretation of the law; and indeed a future PATAS adjudicator can reach a different decision to the adjudicator in our case), and it looks like the Court of Appeal have decided that the carelessly-drafted paragraph in the London Local Authorities Act 2000 should have read "on or over" not just "on" (as in one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than the carriageway).
Not sure if Mr Wolman knew about our case or not - I Googled him last night and left him a voicemail at his chambers, as I am curious to find out a bit more background on his case.