The court considered whether a driver had teken a vehicle without the owners consent, and having had that consent for one purpose, continued to use the car beyond that purpose: ‘[n]ot every brief, unauthorised diversion from his proper route by an employed driver in the course of his working day [would] necessarily involve a ‘taking’ of the vehicle for his own use’. The test was whether ‘he appropriate[d] it to his own use in a manner which repudiates the rights of the true owner, and shows that he has assumed control of the vehicle for his own purposes’.
References: [1974] RTR 4
Judges: Lord Widgery CJ
Statutes: Theft Act 1968 12
Jurisdiction: >England and Wales
This case cites:
- Approved – Regina v Phipps CACD ((1970) 54 Cr App R 300)
Where a person has been given permission by the owner of a motor vehicle to take and use it for a particular purpose, but on completion of that purpose fails to return it and thereafter uses it without any reasonable belief that the owner would . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – McMminn v McMinn and Another QBD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 827 (QB), Times 02-May-06)
The claimant had been severely injured in a car crash when his younger brother was driving. The driver did not have the owner’s permission to drive, and the insurer sought to avoid laibility.
Held: ‘insurers do not have to prove that the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.242638 br>
The post McNight v Davies: 1974 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.