References: 1932 JC 13
Coram: Lord Justice-General (Clyde), Lord Sands
Ratio: The court considered the characteristics which would make ‘any other road to which the public has access’ a road for road traffic legislation.
Lord Clyde said: ‘There must be, as matter of fact, walking or driving by the public on the road, and such walking or driving must be lawfully performed – that is to say, must be permitted or allowed, either expressly or implicitly, by the person or persons to whom the road belongs.’
and ‘I think that, when the statute speaks of ‘the public’ in this connection, what is meant is the public generally, and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go the farmhouse or to any part of the farm itself; were it otherwise, the definition might just as well have included all private roads as well as all public highways.
I think also that, when the statute speaks of the public having ‘access’ to the road, what is meant is neither (at one extreme) that the public has a positive right of its own to access, nor (at the other extreme) that there exists no physical obstruction, of greater or less impenetrability, against physical access by the public; but that the public actually and legally and legally enjoys access to it. It is, I think, a certain state of use or possession that is pointed to. There must be, as matter of fact, walking or driving by the public on the road, and such walking or driving must be lawfully performed — that is to say, must be permitted or allowed, either expressly or impliedly, by the person or persons to whom the road belongs.’ Lord Sands: ‘Any road may be regarded as a road to which the public have access upon which members of the public are to be found who have not obtained access either by overcoming a physical obstruction or in defiance of prohibition express or implied.’
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Clarke v Kato and Others; Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd HL (Times 23-Oct-98, Gazette 25-Nov-98, Gazette 11-Nov-98, House of Lords, Bailii, [1998] UKHL 36, [1998] 4 All ER 417, [1998] WLR 1647)
  Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and . .
• Cited – May v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1280 (Admin))
  Whether the car park where the driving took place was a ‘public place’ within the meaning of section 3.
  Held: The appeal failed.
  Laws LJ set out the following propositions as accurately summarising the relevant legal principles:
  a. . .
• Cited – Harriot v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 965 (Admin))
  The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction under the 1988 Act of possessing a bladed article in a public place. He had been found in the forecourt of a hostel by the police seeking to re-enter after being excluded. He said that it . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17 May 2019
Ref: 194254

The post Harrison v Hill: 1932 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2019] EWHC 718 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Appeal from conviction for offence of using on a road a goods vehicle for hire or reward, without an operator’s licence
Statutes: Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 2(5)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 18 May 2019
Ref: 635252

The post Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency v Classic Restoration and Services Ltd: Admn 16 Jan 2019 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 19-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751
Links: Bailii
Coram: Brooke VP CA, Arden, Longmore LJJ
Ratio: The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident. The judge heard evidence from the claimant’s in person and from a conflicting expert’s report. He preferred the evidence of the claimants which he found to be blameless and honest. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no rule requiring the court to accept an expert’s evidence over that of a lay witness. Our system is one of trial by judge, not by expert witness. The judge had been open and clear as to why he made his findings.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 18 May 2019
Ref: 223680

The post Armstrong and Another v First York: CA 17 Jan 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2003] EWCA Civ 414
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 May 2019
Ref: 181141

The post Adjei v King: CA 19 Mar 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2010] EWHC 3171 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Jack J
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 May 2019
Ref: 426916

The post Shiva Ltd v Transport for London and Another: QBD 8 Dec 2010 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 896 (Admin), Times 25-May-2005, [2005] RTR 370
Links: Bailii
Coram: Burnton J
Ratio: The applicant had paid the congestion charge to allow her to drive into London, but had given the incorrect registration mark.
Held: The mistake was not a mistke which would establish a ground to challenge the penalty, but the adjudicator had been wrong to consider that he had no discretion to accept the circumstance as mitigation. He did have that discretion, and should have exercised it. The scheme was not clear, and its meaning could only be derived by anticipating what might have been wanted. The case did not give grounds for saying that the same result would always obtain, particularly in the case of repeated errors. If Transport for London had a policy for the exercise of the discretion, it was right that those who might be affected by it should know of it.
Statutes: Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Walmsley, Regina (on the Application of) v Lane and Another CA (Times 28-Nov-05, Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1540)
  The defendant had successfully appealed her fine after giving the wrong car number to the congestion charge system.
  Held: When the driver appealed to the adjudicator’s discretion, she could submit anything which might be relevant. Where the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 22 May 2019
Ref: 224949

The post Walmsley, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lane and Another: Admn 18 May 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2002] EWCA Civ 162
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Ward, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Ratio: The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for damages for serious personal injury suffered by her as a child. She had walked out in front of a car. In poor visibility, and with dark clothing, the defendant may not have had opportunity to avoid her.
Held: There was no strong evidence as to her behaviour. She was found not to have stopped at the kerb. It was a counsel of perfection, to say the defendant ought to have seen and reacted at the very split second that she stepped off the kerb. Even if he ought to have seen her, he would not have had opportunity to stop. There was no basis for a finding of negligence.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 May 2019
Ref: 167642

The post Annona Maria James v Stuart Fairley: CA 21 Feb 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 10-Nov-2009
Coram: Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Openshaw
Ratio: The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding on an appeal to the crown court. He said that he had not received the notice of intended prosecution as required within fourteen days.
Held: The Act shifted the burden of proof of late delivery onto the defendant. The letter by had been sent ordinary first-class post in a time of postal strikes. The passage in Archbold on which the judge had relied was misleading. The irrebuttable presumption applied only to letters sent by registered or recorded post, and not to letters sent first class. In times of postal disruption, the police authorities must adapt their practice, or Parliament must change the statute.
Statutes: Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 1(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 May 2019
Ref: 377808

The post Gidden v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 29 Oct 2009 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2004] EWHC 236 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: May LJ, Nelson J
Ratio: The defendant was the registered keeper of a vehicle recorded as having exceeded the speed limit. He was required to identify the driver. He responded saying that it was one of six fleet vehicles and could not say who was driving it at the time. He appealed his conviction.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The letter accompanying and information cross referenced from the letter provided all the information requested. However the form required him to name the driver, and that he had not done. He could not however do so: ‘this conviction was, in large measure, based on an erroneous judgment as to the matter of the form and that, in those circumstances, it seems to me only right that this appeal should be allowed. The matter should be returned to the deputy district judge with a direction to acquit. ‘
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 172
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Boss v Measures QBD ([1990] RTR 26)
  The defendant was prosecuted for having failed to provide information on a form when he had responded by telephone. . .
• Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Broomfield QBD (166 Justice of the Peace 736, (2002) EWHC 1962 (Admin))
  If a notice is in reasonable form and requires the information to be given in a particular form then that form must be used. A purpose of seeking the information in section 172 of the 1988 Act was to enable proof of certain matters, including the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Flegg v Justices of the Peace for the New Forest Local Justice Area Sitting at Lyndhurst Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 396 (Admin))
  The defendant sought judicial review of the refusal by the magistrates to state a case. He was convicted for failing to identify the driver of a motor cycle of which he was a registered keeper which had been caught by a speed camera. Either of two . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 27 May 2019
Ref: 226859

The post Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jan 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2004] EWHC 2456 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: The defendant had been convicted of speeding. At the time the road was thought to be subject to the 30 mph limit but was in fact subject only to the national speed limit. Her solicitors had delayed their application for judicial review.
Held: ‘Where an unjust sentence has been imposed upon a claimant, then, notwithstanding the very long period of delay that has elapsed since she learnt about it, it would, in my view, be unjust to deprive her of relief on that ground alone. ‘ She would however have still been subject to prosecution for traveling in excess of the national speed limit. The sentence was quashed and the matter remitted to the magistrates for recitification and re-sentence.
Statutes: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 81(1) 89(1), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(1)

Last Update: 27 May 2019
Ref: 226905

The post Harrison, Regina (on the Application Of) v Flintshire Magistrates’ Court: Admn 13 Oct 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 1211 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Brooke LJ, Mitting J
Ratio: The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to support such an assertion.
Held: The magistrates had found that the appellant had been lawfully required to give the specimen of breath. There is no requirement on the prosecution to prove that the device remained of a type approved by the Secretary of State and was not so modified as to cease to be of a type so approved before convicting a driver on evidence provided by the test of a blood specimen provided voluntarily by him under section 8(2).
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
This case cites:

• Cited – Howard v Hallett QBD ([1984] RTR 353)
  The police adduced in evidence against the defendant the analysis of a specimen of breath which was not the specimen required under the Act.
  Held: The evidence of the analysis of the specimen relied on by the police was inadmissible in . .
• Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson, Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions HL (Gazette 03-Sep-98, House of Lords, Times 30-Jul-98, Bailii, [1998] UKHL 31, [1999] 1 AC 406, [1998] 3 All ER 769, [1998] 3 WLR 514)
  When requesting a drink driver suspect to give a specimen of blood, an officer’s failure to say that the specimen will be taken by a doctor was not fatal to the prosecution. The issue of whether the blood sample was to be taken had properly been . .
• Cited – Fox v Chief Constable of Gwent HL ([1986] 1 AC 281, [1985] 3 All ER 392, [1985] 1 WLR 1126, [1985] RTR 337, [1986] Crim LR 59, (1985) 82 Cr App R 105, (1985) 150 JP 97)
  The driver left an accident. The police entered his home unlawfully, and on his refusal to supply a breath test, he was arrested and charged with faiing to supply.
  Held: A lawful arrest is not an essential requirement before a breath test, and . .
• Cited – Prince v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn ([1996] CLR 343)
  The appellant had convicted of an offence under s5 on the basis of evidence provided by a laboratory test of a blood sample provided under section 8(2). In each case it was contended that the prosecution were required to prove that the intoximeter . .
• Cited – Branagan v The Director of Public Prosecutions ([2000] RTR 235)
  The defendant appealed against his conviction of driving with excess alcohol, on the basis of a blood sample. He said that it was a requirement that the intoximeter should be shown to be working properly before the evidence of the blood sample was . .
• Cited – Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD (Times 09-Feb-93, [1993] RTR 209, [1993] Crim LR 968)
  The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution.
  Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would . .
• Cited – Thompson v Thynne ([1996] RTR 293)
  . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 27 May 2019
Ref: 227058

The post Wright v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 25 May 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 06-Jul-2005, [2005] EWHC 1393 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Brooke LJ, Field J
Ratio: The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He said that the machine used to measure his breath alcohol was not of the type approved by the Secretary of State.
Held: There was a presumption that the Intoximeter used was type approved. The defendant had brought no evidence to suggest otherwise. The magistrates had exercised a discretion, and that decision was not appealable. They were entitled to be satisfied as to the authenticity of the device under section 24 of the 1988 Act.
Field J said that although the defence statement purported to put the prosecution specifically to proof that the software was UK 5.23, that did not mean that the prosecution has specifically to prove this matter. A general presumption flowed from the fact that the machine was of a type that had been approved. This presumption was plainly consistent with Article 6 ECHR. Thus it was for the appellant to adduce some evidence that the software was otherwise than the specified software. At no stage did the appellant adduce such evidence and therefore he could have no substantial complaint that the prosecution were allowed to provide specific proof of the software through the engineer’s report
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 24
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Coxon v Manchester City Magistrates Court Admn (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 712 (Admin))
  The defendant sought judicial review of the magistrate’s refusal to state a case for an appeal against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the intoximeter used had not received type approval as required. The defendant’s . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 30 May 2019
Ref: 228581

The post Fearnley v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 10 Jun 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2008] EWHC 1776 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Ouseley J
Ratio: The court considered whether the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal road accident in Thailand was driving within the authority of the UK employers. The driver was not an employee but had authority to use company vehicles for tasks for the company. He had previously been banned from driving such vehicles but that ban had been relaxed subject to conditions preventing him driving alone or at night. The accident occurred when the driver took people home from the christmas staff party.
Held: The Thai civil code required two elements for vicarious liability each of which was satisfied. In this respect the Thai law did not differ from UK law. It had not been shown that the driver had taken the car with the authority of the company, and it was not vicariously liable. Nor could the company be said to have given retrospective authority by the way it had handled its insurance claim, or to have ratified the tort. The claimant was solely responsible for authorising the driver to take the car and the defendant was not liable.
Statutes: Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Crouch v Hooper (1852 16 Beav 182)
  Sir John Romilly MR discussed the possibilty of a witness being honest but mistaken: ‘it must always be borne in mind. . how extremely prone persons are to believe what they wish. And where persons are once persuaded of the truth of such a fact, as . .
• Cited – Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) v Kindersley CA ([1951] Ch D 112)
  Sir Raymond Evershed MR discussed the need to keep the doctrine against approbation and reprobation within limits. . .
• Cited – Express Newspapers v News (UK) plc ([1990] 1 WLR 1320, Times 01-Jan-90, [1990] FSR 359, [1990] Ch D 1320)
  If summary judgment is given to one party on his claim, it must also be given on a counterclaim made on the same basis by the defendant. The principle that a party to litigation cannot ‘approbate and reprobate’ (or ‘blow hot and cold’) can curtail a . .
• Cited – Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL ([1953] AC 663, Bailii, [1953] UKHL 4, [1953] 2 All ER 478, [1953] 3 WLR 279)
  The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
  Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .
• Cited – First National Bank Plc v Walker and Another CA (Times 13-Feb-01, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 3015, [2001] 1 FCR 21, [2001] 1 FLR 505, [2001] Fam Law 182)
  A claim that a bank’s charge should be set aside as having been obtained by the undue influence of a co-mortgagee was parasitic upon a claim as between the co-mortgagors in family proceedings. The wife sought as against the bank to challenge the . .
• Cited – PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants) ChD (Gazette 09-Oct-03, [2004] Ch 142, [2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), Bailii)
  The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 01 June 2019
Ref: 271313

The post Smith v Skanska Construction Services Ltd: QBD 29 Jul 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 1533 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Kennedy LJ, Crane J
Ratio: The magistrates stated a case where the police officer requiring a breath speciment, had not allowed a wait of 20 minutes where the defendant had recently eaten a ‘tic-tac’, contrary to the procedure.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v John Kay QBD (Times 13-Apr-98, Bailii, [1998] EWHC Admin 258, [1999] RTR 109)
  The court considered a decision by Justices to exclude evidence under section 8 of the 1984 Act where a police officer had allegedly failed to follow the guidance in relation to a roadside breath test.
  Held: The procedure was not required by . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 01 June 2019
Ref: 228893

The post Director of Public Prosecutions v Coulter: Admn 29 Jun 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 1395 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Statutes: Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 01 June 2019
Ref: 228891

The post Director of Public Prosecutions v Hay: Admn 13 Jun 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 1482 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Bean J
Ratio: The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates had been entitled to find that he had been driving, having had control, if only partial, of the vehicle. The prosecutor had, after the magistrates retired, asked them to return to allow him to add further evidence as to the defendant’s continued disqualification pending taking an exteded driving test. ‘It is also still very clearly the law in the Crown Court . . that once a jury have been sent out to consider their verdict, no evidence may be called, and the rule is very strictly enforced . . the justices were not entitled to allow the prosecution to adduce the further evidence after they had retired to consider their verdict. ‘ The appeal succeeded.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 103(1)(b) 143
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Regina v MacDonagh CA ([1974] RTR 372, [1974] 1 QB 448)
  The Road Traffic Acts do not define the word ‘drive’ and in its simplest meaning it refers to a person using the driver’s controls for the purpose of directing the movement of the vehicle. It matters not that the vehicle is not moving under its own . .
• Cited – Cyril Whitfield v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [1997] EWHC Admin 1007)
  . .
• Cited – Webb v Leadbetter QBD ([1966] 1 WLR 245)
  One of two witnesses whom the prosecution desired to call at the hearing of an information had not arrived. The available witness was called. The prosecution case closed. The defendant gave evidence and his case closed. The justices had retired to . .
• Cited – Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn (Bailii, [2000] EWHC Admin 316)
  At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
• Cited – Tuck v Vehicle Inspectorate Admn (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 728 (Admin))
  The defendant appealed a conviction for exceeding the gross permitted weight on a goods vehicle. The magistrates having heard the case, the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, the prosecution having failed to bring evidence as to the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 01 June 2019
Ref: 228906

The post Traves, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jun 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 1627 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Kennedy LJ, Walker J
Ratio: The prosecutor appealed dismissal of the charge of driving a heavy commercial vehicle on a road which was subject to a maximum weight restriction in breach of the 1984 Act. The company denied that it had any knowledge of the actual route taken by its driver.
Held: The offence involved use by the employer when he caused or mermitted the use. It was in effect a joint enterprise by the employer and employee.
Statutes: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Alphacell Ltd v Woodward HL ([1972] All ER 475, [1972] AC 824, Bailii, [1972] UKHL 4)
  The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .
• Cited – Ross Hillman v Bond ([1974] QB 435)
  An employer can be found to be causing or permitting an employee to overload a vehicle when he was acting in the course of his employment even though the employer is unaware of the employee’s exact activities. . .
• Cited – West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service v Lex Vehicle Leasing Ltd QBD ([1996] RTR 70)
  It was alleged that the maximum permitted front axle weight of the vehicle in question was exceeded. The court was asked what were the circimstances defing a ‘user’ of a motor vehicle in prosecutions for use of the vehicle.
  Held: ‘The . .
• Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Jones CA ([2000] IRLR 373)
  A company Managing Director had arranged for a dockside crane to be adapted, so that with the jaws of the grab bucket open bags could be attached to hooks fitted within the bucket. Jones was in the hold of a ship loading bags onto the hooks when the . .
• Cited – Vehicle Inspectorate v Nuttall HL (Times 19-Mar-99, House of Lords, Gazette 21-Apr-99, Bailii, [1999] 1 WLR 629, [1999] UKHL 14, [1999] 3 All ER 833)
  An operator accused of permitting contraventions of the drivers hours need only be shown to have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent contraventions by his drivers. A willful failure to inspect tachograph charts can amount to prima facie . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 01 June 2019
Ref: 229011

The post Cambridgeshire County Council v Associated Lead Mills Ltd: ChD 22 Jul 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 1781 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Walker J
Ratio: The defendant wished to argue a point to overturn the decision in Chesters. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for hearing by a two judge court.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Owen v Chesters ([1985] RTR 191)
  The court considered the means of proving the reading from a breath test meter: ‘It was clearly the intention of the legislature, in enacting subsection (5), that the defendant should be provided in advance of the hearing with the information . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• See Also – Sneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 560 (Admin))
  The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that though the officers suspected him of having consumed alcohol, they asked him whether he had been drinking without cautioning him, and that no print out . .
• Cited – Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2245 (Admin))
  The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 02 June 2019
Ref: 229744

The post Sneyd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Jul 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: C-372/03, [2005] EUECJ C-372/03
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations ? Directive 91/439/EEC ? Driving licences – Minimum age requirement to drive certain vehicles – Possibility of driving vehicles in a category other than the one for which a driving licence has been issued – Compulsory registration and exchange of driving licences.

Last Update: 04 June 2019
Ref: 230041

The post Commission v Germany (Transport): ECJ 15 Sep 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 13-Oct-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1124
Links: Bailii
Coram: Tuckey, Rix LJJ, Wilson J
Ratio: The applicant appealed revocation of its operator’s licence.
Held: The Commissioner had erred. When revoking an existing goods vehicle licence the burden was on the commissioner to establish that there was good cause to revoke the licence, and not on the operator to demonstrate the contrary. This was clear from the Directive implemented by the Act. Even so that burden had in fact been discharged, and the decision stood, save as to the disqualification of the directors.
Statutes: Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – In the matter of Anglorom Trans (UK) Limited; Paramount Kitchens Ltd CA (Bailiil, [2004] EWCA Civ 998)
  Laddie J, after citing the Bryan Haulage case, explained the need to consider separately the positions of operator and transport manager: ‘If a company breaches the rules set down by the Act, for example if it or its directors are convicted of a . .
• Cited – Crompton T/A David Crompton Haulage v Department of Transport North Western Area CA (Times 07-Feb-03, Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 64, Times 07-Feb-03)
  The claimant challenged the revocation of his operator’s licence. At an earlier tribunal hearing concerning his licence, he had behaved in a loutish manner, and the revocation was based on that behaviour.
  Held: The operator’s licence is a . .
• Cited – Bryan Haulage Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate (No 1) TT ([TT 1 of 2002])
  The tribunal set out the correct approach to findings involving revocation of an operator’s licence (or disqualification): ‘However, in order to take action under s. 26 or to make a finding of loss of good repute under s. 27 or make an order of . .
• Cited – A M Richardson t/a D J Travel Consultants v Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions TT (Unreported, 11 May 2001, Appeal 65/2000)
  The burden of proof for the purpose of a section 27 revocation issue is on the licence holder to prove its continuing good repute. . .
• Cited – Bryan Haulage Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate (No2) [Appeal 217/2002] TT ([Appeal 217/2002])
  (date?) ‘In applying the Crompton case it seems to us that the traffic commissioners and the Tribunal have to reconsider their approach. In cases involving mandatory revocation it has been common for findings to have been made along the lines of ‘I . .
• Cited – Gudmundsson v Iceland ECHR (23285/94, (1996) 21 EHRR CD 89)
  A revocation of a licence is not a deprivation of property, but rather a control of its use within the second paragraph of article 1 under a proportionate and Convention compliant scheme . .
• Cited – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 66, Bailii, Times 05-Dec-03, Gazette 29-Jan-04, [2004] 2 AC 42, [2003] 50 EGCS 95, [2003] 3 WLR 1603, [2004] 1 All ER 135, [2003] NPC 150, 91 Con LR 1, [2004] BLR 1, [2004] UKHRR 253, [2004] Env LR 25, [2004] HRLR 10)
  The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
  Held: The . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 04 June 2019
Ref: 230032

The post Muck It Ltd v Merritt and others; traffic Commissioner v Muck It Ltd and Others, Secretary of State for Transport intervening: CA 15 Sep 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.