References: [1996] RTR 70
Coram: Dyson J
Ratio: 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 so-called narrow approach to the meaning of the word ‘use’ or ‘uses’ where it is found in criminal statutes in conjunction with the alternatives of ’causes or permits,’ has a long pedigree.’
. . and ‘Thus the line has been clearly and consistently drawn by this court. A person is a user only if he is the driver or the owner of the vehicle, but it applies to the owner only if the driver is employed by the owner under a contract of service and at the material time he is driving on his employer’s business. The line has been described variously as not wholly logical and as somewhat artificial, but it has been drawn by this court after due consideration has been given to those criticisms, to some extent, for pragmatic reasons and to avoid confusion.’
Statutes: Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Carmichael and Sons Ltd v Cottle ([1971] RTR 11)
. .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Distinguished – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Times 23-Apr-98, Bailii, [1998] EWHC Admin 363)
A van was stopped carrying a delivery of coal. The insurance was for social domestic and pleasure purposes only. The owner appealed a conviction for using it without insurance.
Held: ‘using’ when the description of the offence in connection . . - Approved – 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 – Cambridgeshire County Council v Associated Lead Mills Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1627 (Admin))
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20 February 2018
Ref: 190480
The post West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service v Lex Vehicle Leasing Ltd: QBD 9 Feb 1995 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.