References: [2004] EWHC 2468 (Admin), Times 07-Jan-2005
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Coram: Silber J, Gibbs J
Ratio: The defendant appealed his conviction for failing a breath test. He said that since the meter could be affected by mouth alcohol, the prosecutor had a duty to show that the reading arose from a breath taken deep from the lung by a deep breath.
Held: Though the intoximeter made a distinction between deep lung breath and mouth breath, the Act did not. The word ‘breath’ had to be taken to have its dictionary meaning, which was ‘air exhaled from any thing’. The approval of the intoximeter could not be used as an aid to interpretation of the statute. Silber J said: ‘I conclude that there is nothing in the Road Traffic Act or in the Road Traffic Offenders Act which suggests that the word ‘breath’ should have a special meaning or that the dictionary definition of ‘breath’ should not apply. It is noteworthy that the statutory provision refers to ‘breath’ and not to ‘deep lung air’. What [counsel] is seeking to persuade us to do is to rewrite the statutory provision and that is not correct.’ The definition of ‘breath’ in section 5 of the Road Traffic Act included all of that which is exhaled and not just deep lung air.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 564 (Admin))
  After routine procedures were followed at the police station, the police took a specimen of breath over two hours after those used for analysis to see if the defendant was then fit to leave. It showed a reading consistent with the analysis of the . .
• Cited – Robert Woolfe v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 1497 (Admin))
  The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He claimed to have a medical condition under which the contents of his stomach would regurgitate into his mouth, and that this could exaggerate the alcohol reading.
  Held: . .
• Cited – Smith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 100 (Admin), [2007] 4 All ER 1135)
  The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
  Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .
• Cited – Rose v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 462 (Admin))
  The defendant appealed by case stated his conviction of driving with excess alcohol. He said that the device used was not an approved one. He also said that the reading was invaid in including a reading of mouth alcohol. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 03 May 2019
Ref: 220540

The post Zafar v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1 Nov 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2004] EWHC 3081 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Davis J
Ratio: Appeal by way of case stated from a decision convicting the appellant, of driving a motor car when he had consumed alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit, contrary to the provisions of section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders’ Act 1988. The issue was whether the car park of a public house was a public place.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 April 2019
Ref: 226931

The post Lewis, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 10 Dec 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

Private Car park was not a public plae.
References: [2019] EWHC 428 (Admin), [2019] 4 WLR 46, [2019] WLR(D) 170
Links: Bailii, WLR
Coram: Julian Knowles J
Ratio: The defendant appealed from his conviction for being drunk in charge of a vehicle in a public place. The place was marked private but allowed for paring for designated businesses.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The phrase public phrase had to be read ejusdem generis with ‘road’. Whether or not a particular place was public was a question of fact and degree in each case. Here the public were not invited to park, and it was not a place to which the public had access..
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 4(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Regina v Spence CACD (Times 24-May-99, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Crim 808, [1999] RTR 353)
  A private company car park, where there was no proof of use by the public, was not a public road, and a driver could not be convicted of dangerous driving whilst in it. There must be evidence that the public actually utilised premises before a court . .
• Cited – Filmer v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3450 (Admin), [2007] RTR 28)
  Conviction for having driven a car whilst drunk in a public place, the car park of his employers. . .
• Cited – Montgomery v Loney CANI ([1959] NI 171)
  When asking whether a roadway is a public road, one asks whether there is about those who obtain permission to enter ‘some reason personal to them for their admittance’, and ‘Generally, the decision will be a matter of fact and degree, but whether . .
• Cited – Director of Public Prosecutins v Vivier ([1991] 4 All ER 18)
  There had been a traffic accident in a large privately owned caravan park.
  Held: Premises will be private where they are entered for reasons beneficial to the occupier. Referring to Harrison v Hill: ‘What Lord Sands, and indeed Lord Clyde, say . .
• 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. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 21 April 2019
Ref: 634215

The post Richardson v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 28 Feb 2019 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2002] EWCA Civ 1058
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 08 May 2019
Ref: 217349

The post Arnesen v Heffey: CA 9 Jul 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 13-Mar-2002, Gazette 11-Apr-2002
Ratio: The motorist had been stopped. He had not failed the roadside breathalyzer test, but the officer continued and arrested him. He was acquitted. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The use of the section 6 breathalyzer procedure did not exclude the officer relying on the powers contained in section 4 of the Act. Where the officer believed an offence had been committed, he did have power to use that section. Accordingly the arrest was lawful, and the evidence subsequently acquired should not have been excluded.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 4 6, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 09 May 2019
Ref: 170040

The post Director of Public Prosecutions v Robertson: QBD 4 Mar 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2002] EWCA Civ 1449
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 09 May 2019
Ref: 217778

The post Zagato Lancia Borkwood Engineering Ltd v Parking Appeals Adjudicator: CA 4 Oct 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2001] EWCA Civ 853
Links: Bailii
Coram: Schiemann, Tucker, Hale LJJ
Ratio: The claimant, who was drunk and a member of a group of people in a similar condition, asked the defendant, a lorry driver, for a lift. When the defendant refused, the claimant climbed onto the front bumper of the defendant’s lorry, holding on by the windscreen wipers, rather than by an adjacent handle. The defendant twice asked the claimant to move and, when the claimant did not, the defendant drove off very slowly, intending to find a quiet spot away from the claimant’s companions where he could persuade the claimant to get off the lorry. After the lorry had travelled about 100 metres, one of the windscreen wipers became detached, the claimant fell off and, although the defendant braked immediately, the lorry struck the claimant, causing serious internal injuries.
The trial judge had found that there had been ‘no pressing need’ for the defendant to take such a potentially dangerous step as to drive off with the claimant standing on the front bumper of the lorry. He concluded that, in doing so, the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care. He found that the defendant was liable to the extent of 25%, the claimant’s contributory negligence being assessed at 75%. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There had been no breach of duty on the part of the defendant.
Hale LJ said: ‘It is interesting that in this case, when discussing contributory negligence, the judge remarked that it was extraordinary that the claimant did not get off the lorry the moment it started to move, when it was going very slowly indeed, and as indeed one of his own witnesses had also wondered. The judge also commented that the driver, although in breach of duty, was put in a difficult situation and his was an error of judgment.
It seems to me that the judge in this case applied too rigorous a standard of care when asking himself whether what the driver had done was reasonable in all the circumstances. He referred, as I have indicated, to the fact that there was ‘not such a pressing need.’ Later on he referred to the fact that ‘the exigencies of the situation did not . . require’ the driver to drive the lorry down the road. That is putting it too high. It seems to me that had the driver indeed done what the claimant said he had done, that is driven in such a violent and erratic way as to indicate that he was trying to dislodge the claimant from the front of the lorry, there could indeed have been a breach of the duty of care because he would have been going well beyond what could be considered a reasonable reaction to the difficult situation in which he was placed. But one has to take all the circumstances of that situation into account when deciding whether what he did do was such a reasonable reaction. These include the fact that he was put into the dilemma by the claimant himself who was behaving in an offensive and thoroughly irresponsible fashion, displaying a complete lack of regard for his own safety, let alone for the difficult position in which he had put the driver and his mate. One also has to take into account the surrounding circumstances. It is was late at night (just after the closing time for this particular establishment), there was a reasonably large group of people on the pavement, some of whom at least were friends of the claimant, some of whom had obviously been drinking, and even if the others were not actually aggressive, the claimant was. The claimant’s intention may only have been to hold up the lorry for five minutes but the driver and his mate had no means of knowing that and were put in a very difficult situation. In those circumstances I would not consider it unreasonable to drive off very slowly with a view to stopping at some quieter spot away from the group to persuade the claimant to get off.
Furthermore, the judge could have taken more account of the fact that the claimant only fell off when he was engaged in an even more stupid and dangerous act of pulling at the windscreen wiper on to which he was holding. I would agree with Mr Kilcoyne on behalf of the respondent claimant that that does not necessarily rob the driving of all causative effect, but it does indicate something about the reasonableness of the driver’s conduct up until that point.
For my part I would say that there was in the particular circumstances of this case, in the very difficult situation in which the driver found himself, no breach of the duty to take reasonable care. For that reason I would allow the appeal.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Ayres v Odedra QBD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 40 (QB))
  The claimant sought damages for serious personal injury, saying that the defendant had deliberately or recklessly driven at him as a pedestrian, knocking him over. The defendant had been tried and acquitted of motoring offences. He said that the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 09 May 2019
Ref: 218195

The post North v TNt Express (UK) Ltd: CA 25 May 2001 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWCA Civ 1061
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Buxton Master of the Rolls (Lord Phillips) Lord Justice Scott Baker
Ratio: Appeal against a decision refusing Mr Cummings judicial review of a decision of the Cardiff County Council to remove the restriction on the number of hackney carriage licences in Cardiff.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Appeal From – Cummings v Cardiff County Council Admn (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 2295 (Admin))
  Licensing of taxis – removal of limit on hackney carriage licences destroying value of existing licences. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 May 2019
Ref: 229727

The post Cummings, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff County Council: CA 11 Jul 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2002] EWCA Civ 1029
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 10 May 2019
Ref: 217486

The post See v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 8 Jul 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2001] EWCA Civ 1527
Links: Bailii
Coram: Ward, Potter, May LJJ
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 10 May 2019
Ref: 218436

The post Ledger v Spurgeon: CA 11 Oct 2001 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 03-May-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002
Coram: Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Keith
Ratio: The motorist was to be asked to take a breath test at the police station. The defendant was asked if he was on medication, and he produced a pill. The officer went ahead wit the test. At court the defendant said that he should first have sought medical advice to see whether he was fit to be tested.
Held: The breath test was not as invasive as the blood test, and therefore less rigorous care was needed. There was no need for the officer to call a doctor in these circumstances. The Wade requirements applied only when the officer was requiring a blood sample.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988& 5(1)(a) 7(1) 7(3)(a) 7(4)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Wade v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD (Times 14-Feb-95, (1996) RTR 177)
  The Police Constable had failed to enquire further on the issue of ‘taking tablets’ as a medical reason for refusing to give a breath test. The prosecution failed. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 11 May 2019
Ref: 170224

The post Steadman v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 15 Apr 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 15-Nov-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1440
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice May Lord Justice Thomas
Ratio: The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users to ensure that all or any trunk roads would be salted in freezing conditions. It is the primary responsibility of motorists to take care for their own safety and that of their passengers and other road users, and there was no evidence that the deceased had relied on an expectation that the road had been salted. Appeal dismissed.
Statutes: Highways Act 1980
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL (Times 16-Jun-00, House of Lords, Gazette 29-Jun-00, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 34, [2000] 3 All ER 603, [2000] 1 WLR 1356)
  The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
  Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
• Cited – Cross v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council CA (Times 10-Jul-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1986, [1998] 1 All ER 564)
  The Council’s duty to maintain a highway is not absolute. It must take reasonable steps to prevent or clear ice forming on pathway. Lord Justice Evans analysed the application of Section 41 to a situation which arose from ice and snow. In any case . .
• Cited – Haydon v Kent County Council CA ([1978] QB 343, [1978] 2 All ER 97)
  Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . .
• Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL (HL, [2004] UKHL 15, Bailii, Times 02-Apr-04, [2004] 1 WLR 1057, [2004] RTR 27, [2004] 2 All ER 326)
  The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
  Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
• Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL ([1990] 2 AC 605, Bailii, [1990] UKHL 2, [1990] 1 All ER 568)
  The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
  Held: The . .
• Appeal from – Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions QBD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 28 (QB), Gazette 05-Feb-04)
  The claimant asserted a common law duty on the respondent to maintain a roadway free of frost.
  Held: No such common law duty existed. Where parliament has conferred a discretionary power, ‘ . . the minimum preconditions for basing a duty of . .
• Cited – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL (Gazette 25-Sep-96, Times 26-Jul-96, [1996] AC 923, Bailii, [1996] UKHL 15, [1996] 3 All ER 801, [1996] 3 WLR 389)
  The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
• Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL (Bailii, [2003] UKHL 47, House of Lords, Times 01-Aug-03, Gazette 11-Sep-03, [2003] 3 WLR 705, [2004] 1 AC 46, [2003] NPC 102, [2003] 32 EGCS 68, [2003] 3 All ER 1122, [2004] PIQR P8)
  The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser.
  Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The risk of injury arose, not from any . .
• Cited – Bird v Pearce CA ([1979] RTR 369)
  The plaintiff was a passenger in a car on a major road which who was injured in a collision with a car which emerged from a minor road. The driver of the second car, who was agreed (as between the two cars) to be 90% responsible, joined the County . .
• Cited – Capital and Counties Plc and Another v Hampshire County Council; Etc CA (Times 20-Mar-97, [1997] QB 1004, [1997] 3 WLR 342)
  Three cases were brought against fire services after what were said to be negligent responses to call outs. On one, the fire brigade was called to a fire at office premises in Hampshire. The fire triggered the operation of a heat-activated sprinkler . .
• Cited – Larner v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council CA (Times 06-Feb-01, Gazette 22-Feb-01, (2001) RTR 469, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 359)
  The duty on a local authority to promote road safety did not remove from them the discretion as to how that duty was to be implemented. A claim that the authority had failed to place certain signage, and that an accident had occurred which might not . .
• Cited – Mercer v South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies’ Managing Committee KBD ([1922] 2 KB 549)
  A claimant was knocked down by a train when he went through an unlocked gate onto the railway line. The defendants were held liable, because it was their practice, known to the plaintiff, to keep the gate locked when trains were passing, but the . .
• Cited – Merrett v John RH Babb CA (Gazette 29-Mar-01, Times 02-Mar-01, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 214, [2001] QB 1174, (2001) EGCS 20, [2001] 3 WLR 1)
  The applicant had been employed as a surveyor by a firm which had subsequently become insolvent. The firm’s run off professional indemnity insurance had lapsed. He had provided the negligent survey, and he was sued in person.
  Held: He was . .
• Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL ([1995] 2 AC 145, [1994] 3 All ER 506, Times 26-Jul-94, Bailii, [1994] UKHL 5, [1994] 3 WLR 761)
  Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
  Held: The assumption of . .
• Cited – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL (Times 28-Jul-00, House of Lords, Gazette 31-Aug-00, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 47, [2001] 2 AC 619, [2000] 3 WLR 776, [2000] 4 All ER 504, (2000) 150 NLJ 1198)
  The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
  
• Cited – OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport QBD (Times 22-Jul-97, [1997] 3 All ER 397)
  Eight children with a teacher and two instructors set off on a canoeing trip but did not return. They got into difficulties at sea. Two became separated from the rest. The canoes capsized and sank. Some tried to swim ashore. Two more members became . .
• Cited – Kent v Griffiths and Others (No 2) CA (Times 10-Feb-00, Gazette 17-Feb-00, Bailii, [2000] 2 All ER 474, [2001] 1 QB 36, [2000] EWCA Civ 25)
  An ambulance service could be liable in negligence in respect of its response to an emergency call-out where for no good reason there was an unreasonable delay in responding, and the servivice had accepted the call. The ambulance service was . .
• Cited – Michael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated CA (Gazette 22-Mar-01, Times 02-Feb-01, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 2116, [2001] QB 1134, Bailii, [2001] PIQR 16)
  The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant’s rules. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. By the time he received resuscitation . .

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

• Appealed to – Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions QBD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 28 (QB), Gazette 05-Feb-04)
  The claimant asserted a common law duty on the respondent to maintain a roadway free of frost.
  Held: No such common law duty existed. Where parliament has conferred a discretionary power, ‘ . . the minimum preconditions for basing a duty of . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 11 May 2019
Ref: 219323

The post Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions: CA 5 Nov 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2004] EWCA Civ 1491, Times 17-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1226
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Parker The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ratio: The driver had driven his car at a crowd of people intending to frighten them. Instead one had been killed. The insurers resisted liability saying that the use of the car for this purpose and as it was being used as a taxi, was not use for social domestic or pleasure purposes.
Held: The court should look to the essential character of the journey. The incident took place after he had finished his last fare of the evening. At that time he was merely returning home and driving within the terms of the policy.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 151
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Gardner v Moore HL ([1984] AC 548)
  The uninsured first defendant deliberately drove a car at the plaintiff who was walking on the pavement, and thus caused serious injuries. The MIB accepted that the trial judge was bound by Hardy to declare that the Bureau was bound to indemnify the . .
• Cited – Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA ([1964] 2 QB 745, [1964] 2 All ER 742)
  The court was asked whether insurance pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1960 would provide valid cover for the benefit of a third party injured by deliberately criminal conduct on the part of the driver.
  Held: Diplock LJ said: ‘The rule of law . .
• Cited – Seddon v Binions CA ([1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 381)
  The Court gave guidance on the proper method of interpreting a term of a motor insurance policy which defines the limitations of use subject to which the policy provides cover. Roskill LJ: ‘Inevitably, where one has a phrase such as ‘social, . .
• Cited – Caple v Sewell and others CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1848, [2002] Lloyds IR Rep 626)
  . .
• Cited – Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd HL ([1938] AC 586, [1938] 2 All ER 602)
  The forfeiture rule was to be applied in a case involving suicide. An insured may not recover under a policy of insurance in respect of loss intentionally caused by his own criminal or tortious act, however clearly the wording of the policy may . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 11 May 2019
Ref: 219335

The post Keeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s: CA 10 Nov 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1989] AC 281
Ratio: The prosecution should not seek to rely on evidence of back-calculation unless it is both easily understood and clearly establishes the presence of excess alcohol at the time when the defendant was driving.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Appeal from – Gumbley v Cunningham ([1987] 3 All ER 733, [1988] QB 170, [1987] Crim LR 776, (1987) 86 Cr App R 282, [1987] 3 WLR 1072)
  Justices had to be careful not to convict of driving with excess alcohol unless they were sure on the basis of scientific and other evidence that the defendant had been over the limit at the time of the alleged offence. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 13 May 2019
Ref: 464827

The post Gumbley v Cunningham: HL 1989 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2004] EWCA Civ 1600
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Motor insurer seeking to avoid policy for non-disclosure by insured that trainee golf-pro.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13 May 2019
Ref: 219898

The post Whitlam v Hazel for Lloyds Syndicate 260 (T/A K6M Motor Policies at Lloyds): CA 2 Dec 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2004] EWHC 2785 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Speeding
Statutes: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Last Update: 13 May 2019
Ref: 220181

The post Director of Public Prosecutions v Evans: Admn 20 Oct 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2004] EWCA Crim 3049
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mr Justice Butterfield Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Hedley
Ratio: Appeal against conviction for causing death by dangerous driving – lorry driver having driven for 20 hours and also employer.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13 May 2019
Ref: 220219

The post Coates, Graves v Regina: CACD 2 Dec 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2002] EWCA Civ 1538
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice May And Mr Justice Bodey
Ratio: The claimant was severely injured when, as he emerged through traffic lights as they turned green. He was in a collision with a fire engine driving in response to an emergency call-out. The driver of the fire engine said the claimant should have seen the lights. The officers were not sounding the wailing alarm. The Regulations allowed a specific but limited exemption for emergency vehicles from compliance with traffic lights.
Held: The evidence from the fire officers to suggest that the claimant should have seen them coming was not convincing. The decision reached by the recorder was capable of being reached from the evidence before him. Both the regulations and the services own code of conduct required an emergency vehicle in this situation to give way. The driver had not done so. However: ‘With some hesitation, I am driven to conclude that a properly observant driver would and should have so noticed the fire engine and that Mr Purdue failed to do so. I think that this failure amounts to a want of observation and thus a want of due care. Accordingly, in my judgment there was a degree of contributory negligence but, for the reasons advanced by Mr Hillier, I do not think that that degree was great.’ The claimant was found to be 20% liable.
Statutes: Traffic Signs And General Directions Order 1994 (1994 No 1519)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2441, [1998] PIQR 44)
  A driver who had crossed through a green traffic light but had collided with an ambulance was 60 per cent contributorily negligent. He had failed to hear the ambulance, had failed to see it, and had ignored unusal driving of other motorists.
  

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 14 May 2019
Ref: 217736

The post Purdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Service: CA 9 Oct 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 12-Mar-2007, [2007] EWHC 383 (Admin)
Coram: Sir Igor Judge P, Lloyd Jones J
Ratio: The defendant drivers appealed against convictions for speeding, saying that the speed signs did not have the correct width of black border.
Held: The appeals failed. The signs were in casings the lip of which did not form a background which would have brought into play the requirement to have the border. The signs complied with the regulations.
Statutes: Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (2002 No 3113)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Herron and Another., Regina (on The Application of) v The Parking Adjudicator CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 905)
  The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review of decisions of the parking adjudicator as to the correctness of 39 penalty charge notices. In each case, they said that the signage supporting the notice, in particular single and double . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 14 May 2019
Ref: 263792

The post Canadine and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 14 Feb 2007 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 16 (Admin), [2006] LGR 304
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Traffic regulation scheme.
Held: In consulting about an increase in airport capacity in South East England, the government had acted unlawfully in consulting upon possible development only at Heathrow, Stansted and the Thames estuary and not also at Gatwick.
Statutes: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 May 2019
Ref: 222030

The post Montpeliers and Trevors Association, Regina (on the Application of) v City of Westminster: Admn 13 Jan 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.