References: C-464/02, [2005] EUECJ C-464/02
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of movement for workers – Motor vehicles – Making available to the employee by the employer – Vehicle registered in the Member State of the employer – Employee resident in another Member State – Taxation of the motor vehicle.

Last Update: 04 June 2019
Ref: 230040

The post Commission v Denmark (Free Movement Of Persons): ECJ 15 Sep 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 13-Oct-2005, [2005] EWHC 2278 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Keene LJ, Poole J
Ratio: The Agency appealed against dismissal of its allegation that the defendant had wrongfully withdrawn his tachograph record. He had lifted the top of the tachograph which had the effect if disengaging the marker without actually removing the record sheet.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The section was to be construed purposively. Any action which lifted the record sheet from the stylus could be construed as falling within the word ‘withdraw.’
This case cites:

• Cited – Bulmer (HP) Ltd v Bollinger SA CA ([1974] 1 Ch 401, [1974] 3 WLR 202, [1974] 2 All ER 1226)
  The plaintiff complained that the respondent had described its drink ‘Babycham’ as a champagne perry, which it said was a misuse of the appellation ‘champagne’.
  Held: The court considered the effect of European legislation on the law of . .
• Cited – HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others CA (Bailii, [1974] EWCA Civ 14, [1974] 2 All ER 1226, [1974] 3 WLR 202, [1974] Ch 401)
  Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 05 June 2019
Ref: 231177

The post Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v Jones (Nell): Admn 5 Oct 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 12-Oct-2005, [2005] EWHC 2369 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Keene LJ, Poole J
Ratio: The claimant sought a license to allow him to use motor-bikes as private hire vehicles. The council had refused a licence saying that they were not safe. He claimed that since they were safe to be on the road, they should be licensed.
Held: The Act imposed two requirements for safety. The vehicle itself should be safe, and it should in addition be safe to be used as a private hire vehicle.
Statutes: Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 48

Last Update: 05 June 2019
Ref: 231463

The post Chaffeur Bikes Ltd v Leeds City Council: QBD 20 Oct 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 31-Oct-2005, [2005] EWHC 2977 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Scott Baker LJ, Newman J
Ratio: The defendant was asked to give a sample of blood. He declined, saying that the sight of blood drove him into a trance in which state he was liable to be violent. The Director appealed the finding that this was a proper excuse as a health concern.
Held: The district judge had failed to distinguish clearly between the taking of blood and the sight of blood. The defendant might simply have closed his eyes or looked away. The case was remitted with a direction to convict.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)
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: 06 June 2019
Ref: 231645

The post Director of Public Prosecutions v Mukandiwa: QBD 21 Oct 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 28-Nov-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1540
Links: Bailii
Coram: Chadwick, Sedley, Keene LJJ
Ratio: 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 appeal was directed specifically at provisions of the regulations, the adjudicator could only look to see whether the appeal brought itself within the grounds set out. On that basis the adjudicator’s appeal succeeded.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Walmsley, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lane and Another Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 896 (Admin), Times 25-May-05, [2005] RTR 370)
  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 . .
• Cited – Regina (Westminster City Council) v Parking Adjudicator Admn (Times 06-Jun-02, Bailii, Gazette 11-Jul-02, [2002] EWHC 1007 (Admin), [2003] RTR 1)
  The adjudicator sought, when deciding an appeal against a parking penalty, to take account of the applicant’s mitigating circumstances. He had reduced the penalty to zero.
  Held: The reference to a discretion allowed where ‘the penalty charge . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 08 June 2019
Ref: 235407

The post Walmsley, Regina (on the Application of) v Lane and Another: CA 17 Nov 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 2669 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: The Honourable Mr Justice Owen
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 08 June 2019
Ref: 235888

The post Scott, Regina (on the Application Of) v Heathrow Airport Ltd.: Admn 1 Dec 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWCA Civ 1452
Links: Bailii
Coram: May LJ
Ratio: May LJ said: ‘Caparo and Murphy v Brentford were both cases concerning economic loss, not physical damage, but the principle is the same for each. The question is whether the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is such that it imposes on the latter a duty to take care to avoid or prevent the loss which has in fact been sustained. That question subsumes the question whether the acts or omissions of the defendant cause the damage relied on. If they do not there is no negligence’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Macleod (By His Deputy and Litigation Friend, Macleod) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 977 (QB))
  The claimant sought damages after being severely injured when knocked from his cycle by police officers in a car attending an emergency, and driving over the speed limit.
  Held: The claim succeeded, and there had been no contributory negligence . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 June 2019
Ref: 236372

The post Sam v Atkins: CA 9 Nov 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1969] 1 WLR 1266, [1969] 3 All ER 257, (1969) 64 Cr App R 160
Coram: Lord Reid, Lord Morris
Ratio: The House was asked whether or not a person was ‘driving or attempting to drive’ a motor vehicle when he had been stopped by the police in connection with the illumination of his rear number plate, and the driver got out of the car and started to talk to the police and they, smelling alcohol, required him to take a blood test which he refused to do.
Held:
Lord Morris said: ‘In my view, the words ‘person driving’ in . . at least cover and include someone who has been driving but who has temporarily interrupted his driving and is about to resume driving.’ and ‘Thus, if someone intended to park his car in the road outside his home he might drive to a place outside his house and there stop; just before and at that very instant he would be a ‘person driving’ and in general terms he could be described as ‘the driver’. But if, having finished his journey, he stopped his engine and locked his car and went inside his home, he would then have ceased to be a ‘person driving’ although in general terms someone might still describe him as ‘the driver’. Questions of fact and of degree may well arise.’
Lord Reid said:’ In determining the meaning of any word or phrase in a statute the first question to ask always is what is the natural or ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context in the statute? It is only when that meaning leads to some result which cannot reasonably be supposed to have been the intention of the legislature, that it is proper to look for some other possible meaning of the word or phrase. We have been warned again and again that it is wrong and dangerous to proceed by substituting some other words for the words of the statute.’
and ‘It asks me to choose between two phrases ‘actually driving’ and ‘the driver, neither of which is to be found in the Act. It is in effect substituting ‘the driver’ for the statutory words ‘person driving or attempting to drive’. The two are not the same. A person can often be properly called the driver although for quite a long time he has neither been driving nor attempting to drive.’
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1968
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Aitken v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited SCS (Bailii, [2003] ScotCS 160, ScotC, Times 28-Jun-03)
  . .
• Cited – Molaudi v Ministry of Defence EAT (Bailii, [2011] UKEAT 0463 – 10 – 1504, [2011] ICR D19)
  EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
  The Claimant sought to bring a claim for racial discrimination against the defendant relating to events which occurred while the Claimant was a serving soldier. He had previously . .
• Cited – British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn (Bailii, [2019] EWHC 1397 (Admin))
  The Court considered ‘ the correct interpretation of the words, ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week’ in s.1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 ‘ The guidance was challenged as the calculations. The date of the beginning of the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 14 June 2019
Ref: 184319

The post Pinner v Everett: HL 1969 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 2938 (Admin), [2006] 2 All ER 317
Links: Bailii
Coram: Newman J
Ratio: The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person.
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 2003 103
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Regina v Burns CACD (Times 07-Mar-06)
  The defendant complained that the court had wrongfully admitted evidence of a previous conviction on the basis only that he shared the name and date of birth of the person convicted. The conviction was used as evidence of his propensity to be . .
• Cited – Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 3304 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 157, [2009] RTR 12)
  The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified, saying that they had had insufficient evidence that he was such. It was not disputed that he was driving. Previous convictions for the same offence had been entered, but . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 June 2019
Ref: 238178

The post Pattison v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 15 Dec 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2006] EWHC 315 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Stanley Burnton J
Ratio: The two claimants sought title to a car registration plate and to a chassis number. They were to be applied to historic racing cars.
Held: The power to assign registration marks lay with the Secretary of State. Any legal rights rested not with a car but with a legal person, which a car is not. Courts ought to be careful before investing time on such matters. The power of the Court to make declarations is unfettered by statute or the CPR, but the power should not be exercised in this case. Both claim and counterclaim were dismissed.
Statutes: Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1955, Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1964, Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971, Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Financial Services Authority v Rourke ChD (Times 12-Nov-01, Gazette 29-Nov-01, [2002] CP Rep 14)
  The applicant sought a declaration that the defendant had acted in breach of the Act, in accepting sums by way of deposit, without being authorised, and had made prohibited statements to attract such deposits. Could a civil court make such a finding . .
• Cited – Hubbard v Middlebridge Scimitar Ltd (Bailii, [1990] EWHC 1 (QB))
  The plaintiff had contracted to sell a vintage Bentley racing car ‘Old Number One’ for andpound;10 million pounds. The buyer came to suspect its authenticity and refused to complete. The plaintiff sought specific performance.
  Held: During the . .
• Cited – Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA ([1991] 1 WLR 1362, [1991] 4 All ER 638)
  An Indian temple having a legal persona recognised in India may assert rights and make claims under English Law. Even though it would not be recognised as a litigant if based in England and Wales, it was nonetheless entitled, in accordance with the . .

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

• See Also – Lloyd v Svenby QBD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 576 (QB))
  . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 18 June 2019
Ref: 238737

The post Lloyd v Svenby: QBD 27 Feb 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2006] EWCA Crim 415, Times 15-Mar-2006
Links: Bailii
Coram: Moses LJ, Jack J, Royce J
Ratio: The appellant challenged his conviction for aiding an abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving as a passenger. The driver had been drunk.
Held: The mere intoxication of the driver was not of itself and alone sufficient to establish dangerous driving. Woodward decided only that evidence of drinking was admissible, not that it was evidence capable of determining the standard of driving. In his summing up, the judge twice referred to whether it had been wise of the defendant to allow the driver to drive given his state. This was not the question posed by s2A: ‘The question was whether the appellant recognised, by virtue of what he saw to be Westbrook’s drunken condition, that Westbrook was likely to drive dangerously. It is one thing to set out to prove that it was dangerous to permit Westbrook to drive because he had been drinking or was drunk. It is a quite different question whether, by virtue of the amount it was apparent to the appellant that Westbrook had drunk, the appellant realised Westbrook was likely to drive dangerously. ‘ The conviction was unsafe.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 2A
This case cites:

• Cited – Regina v McBride ([1962] 2 QB 167, [1961] 3 All ER 6)
  Evidence that a driver had been drinking was admissible when the driver faced a charge of dangerous driving. . .
• Cited – Regina v Woodward (Terence) CACD (Times 07-Dec-94, [1995] 2 Cr App R 388, [1995] 3 All ER 79, [1995] RTR 130)
  On a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1988 Act, the fact that the driver was adversely affected by alcohol was a relevant circumstance in determining whether he was driving dangerously.’The fact (if it . .
• Cited – Johnson v Youden KBD ([1950] 1 KB 544, [1950] 1 All ER 301, 114 JP 136)
  For a charge of aiding and abetting, the defendant must be shown to have been aware of the essential elements of his acts which constituted the complete crime. However, that may be inferred if a defendant shuts his eyes to the obvious.
  Lord . .
• Cited – Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL (Times 31-Oct-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 45, [1997] 4 All ER 545, [1999] AC 1, [1997] 3 WLR 959, [1998] Crim LR 48, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 261, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 57)
  When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .

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

• Cited – Martin v Regina CACD (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Crim 1450, [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 38)
  The defendant had been a passenger on a car driven by a learner driver. The car crashed killing the driver and seriously injuring another. He appealed against his conviction for aiding and abetting dangerous driving.
  Held: The appeal . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 18 June 2019
Ref: 239058

The post Webster v Regina: CACD 3 Mar 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2006] EWHC 314 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 22A(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 18 June 2019
Ref: 239150

The post Director of Public Prosecutions v D: Admn 21 Feb 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2006] EWHC 396 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Richards LJ, David Clarke J
Ratio: 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 riders might have been using it.
Held: Having failed to identify the driver he had to bring himself within section 172(4) to establish that he was unable to do so despite due diligence. The information provided was inaccurate and misleading: ‘it is clear that the claimant did not believe that he was the driver and knew that the only other possibility was Dr Sepp. It seems to me to be a clear inference that he believed that the driver was Dr Sepp and that his state of mind in relation to the identity of the driver was as close to knowledge as anybody who has not been present at the place of the offence can come. The fact that Dr Sepp did not believe that he (Dr Sepp) had been the driver was neither here nor there. ‘ The position was clear, and the request for a judicial review failed.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 172(3) 172(4)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Thornley Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 312 (Admin))
  The prosecution appealed dismissal of an allegation of speeding. The defendant had argued that the prosecution had not served the required evidence. The prosecution sought to rely upon the evidence of the officer.
  Held: The provisions of . .
• Cited – Hawkes v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD (Times 29-Nov-05, [2005] EWCA 3046 (Admin))
  The defendant appealed her convictions for assaulting a police officer and obstructing him in the course of his duty. She had acted in an abusive manner, but there had been no violence.
  Held: Whilst she might have been arrested on the basis . .
• Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Glendinning Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2333 (Admin))
  The defendant had been accused of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty by warning motorists of presence of a police speed trap. The prosecutor appealed from dismissal of the charge.
  Held: ‘the hand signals given by the . .
• Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Mukandiwa QBD (Times 31-Oct-05, Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2977 (Admin))
  The defendant was asked to give a sample of blood. He declined, saying that the sight of blood drove him into a trance in which state he was liable to be violent. The Director appealed the finding that this was a proper excuse as a health concern. . .
• Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD (Gazette 02-Nov-00, Times 20-Oct-00)
  Where magistrates considered an offence for which a driving ban was discretionary, they were entitled at that stage to take account of the driving record, even though they knew they would have to take that same record into account when considering a . .
• Cited – Cox, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2694 (Admin))
  . .
• Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 236 (Admin))
  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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 18 June 2019
Ref: 239255

The post Flegg v Justices of the Peace for the New Forest Local Justice Area Sitting at Lyndhurst: Admn 21 Feb 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2005] EWHC 3234 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Last Update: 18 June 2019
Ref: 239264

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

References: [2006] EWHC 566 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Ousely J
Ratio: The claimant asked for judicial review of a decision to adjourn the case against him on a charge of driving with excess alcohol. The district judge had already insisted on the date fixed for the hearing as against the defendant, but then adjourned when prosecution witnesses did not appear. The court did not allow defence counsel to finish addressing them before adjourning.
Held: the court expressed considerable surprise that both the magistartes and the CPS were represented by the same counsel. The magistrates adjourned on that basis that the defence was at fault when they were not, and therefore the magistrates failed to consider the consequences to the defendant in costs. In any event the prosecutions analyst had failed to attend a second time. ‘The prosecution in reality was being given a leeway denied to the defence with no certain prospects of costs redress.’ In the circumstances the proceedings were stayed permanently.
This case cites:

• Cited – Essen v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1077 (Admin))
  . .
• Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn (Bailii, [1997] EWHC Admin 119, [1998] QB 110, [1997] 2 Cr App R 340, [1997] 2 WLR 854)
  The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 19 June 2019
Ref: 240063

The post Stavrinou, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horseferry Road Justices: Admn 22 Feb 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2006] EWHC 560 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Richards LJ, David Clarke J
Ratio: 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 from the Intoximeter having been produced, there was no evidence on which he could be convicted. The officer gave evidence not of his reading of the Intoximeter but of the print out.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Drinking itself is not a criminal offence. At the point when the officer asked him whether he had been drinking paragraphs 10 and 11 of the PACE code were not engaged. The fact that he had been drinking allowed the officer then to require the breath test. As to the complaint about the admission of the officer’s evidence in the absence of the printout: ‘oral evidence was given by the officer who carried out the procedure, evidence which was supported by the other officer who was present throughout. There was no challenge to that evidence in cross-examination. No objection was taken to its admissibility at the time and no challenge, indeed, to its correctness.’
Richards LJ said of the arguments advanced for the appellant: ‘In conclusion, I am satisfied that the there is no merit in the arguments advanced by Miss Calder in relation to the justices’ findings concerning the breath test procedure. Fortunately the justices were not misled by such arguments but dealt with the case sensibly and robustly, making findings properly open to them on the unchallenged evidence they had heard.’
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• See Also – Sneyd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1781 (Admin))
  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. . .
• 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 . .
• Cited – Thom v Director of Public Prosecutions ([1994] RTR 11)
  The defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. No print-out was produced but there was oral evidence from the officers who carried out the procedure that the machine was calibrated properly and working properly and what the readings . .
• Cited – Denneny v Harding ([1986] RTR 350)
  Although a police officer was able to give evidence about what he saw on the Intoximeter display panel, the evidence of the officer in the case went no further than the evidence of the readings of alcohol in the appellant’s breath. In order to prove . .
• Cited – Mayon v Director of Public Prosecutions ([1988] RTR 281)
  In the absence of evidence of calibration of an Intoximeter either before or after the second specimen was produced, there had been a failure to prove the precondition that the machine was working satisfactorily. . .
• Cited – Greenway v Director of Public Prosecutions ([1994] RTR 17)
  The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The officer had given evidence that at the time of the test all of the readings showed that the machine was working properly. That evidence was not challenged by the . .

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

• 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: 19 June 2019
Ref: 240062

The post Sneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 24 Feb 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2006] EWHC 116 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Coram: John Previte QC
Ratio:

Last Update: 19 June 2019
Ref: 240116

The post Whittle v Bennett: QBD 14 Feb 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: 1984 SLT 185
Coram: Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Wheatley
Ratio: The respondent, was a passenger in a motor car who was injured in an accident. He raised an action of damages against the driver, the appellant, who had been convicted of an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1972. The men had been drinking together in public houses for most of the day and when the respondent entered the appellant’s car to return home, he knew that the appellant was drunk. The appellant contended that he was not liable in damages to the respondent inter alia because the respondent had voluntarily accepted the risk of an accident.
Held: After reviewing the Scotish cases: including McCaig v Langan and Fowler v Tierney: ‘From these expressions of view as to what is involved in the maxim so far as the law of Scotland is concerned, I can find no support for, but rather refutation of, the contention that its effect here is to establish that on this journey there never was any duty on the defender as the driver of the car to take reasonable care quoad the pursuer […]. In my opinion the effect of the maxim was not to relieve the defender from any duty to take care quoad his passengers. On the contrary the maxim proceeds on the basis that there is duty to take care and not be negligent, but the successful establishment of the maxim means that the pursuer has accepted the risk of the defender’s negligence in the exercise of his legal duties and has absolved the defender from the consequences arising from that negligence.’
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

• Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS (Bailii, [2005] ScotCS CSOH – 69, Times 14-Jun-05, Scottish CS)
  The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
  Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20 June 2019
Ref: 226757

The post Winnik v Dick: 1984 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2019] EWCA Civ 909
Links: Bailii
Ratio: The MIB appealed against a determination that EU Directive 2009/103/EC relating to compulsory motor insurance had direct effect against the MIB as an emanation of the state, so that the MIB was liable to indemnify the respondent claimant (to whom I will refer as ‘the claimant’) in respect of the injury he suffered an incident with an uninsured driver. MIB had argued that the injury was not on a road or other public place.
Held: The appeal failed. Though a private body, the MIB had had delegated to it the duty placed on the state of complying with the European Directive.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 20 June 2019
Ref: 637984

The post Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Lewis: CA 5 Jun 2019 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2006] EWHC 833 (Ch), Times 28-Jun-2006
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sir Francis Ferris
Ratio: The bankrupt had been entitled to a valuable vehicle registration mark ‘AMR 1T’. He sold it to a creditor, the claimant to clear that debt. The trustee now said that the purported assignment was ineffective.
Held: ‘VRMs are assigned to vehicles, not to registered owners or other individuals. The Secretary of State has power to assign or re-assign a VRM under Section 23(2) but a vehicle owner cannot require him to do so. The only relevant right which a vehicle owner has in relation to the transfer of a VRM from one vehicle to another is to seek the exercise in his favour of the Secretary of State’s power under Section 26. ‘ The right was not a chose in action capable of assignment. Had he been entitled to the VRM, any assignment would have been an unlawful preference.
Statutes: Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 23 26, Insolvency Act 1986 340(3)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Distinguished – In re Fry ChD ([1946] Ch 312, [1946] 2 All ER 105)
  A settlor executed a transfer of shares but failed to obtain the consent of the Treasury under the Regulations. The transferees argued that the testator had executed documents which were appropriate to the subject matter of the gift, namely the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20 June 2019
Ref: 240438

The post Goel v Pick: ChD 12 Apr 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.