The defendant believed that a driver was the holder of a driving licence and permitted him to use the vehicle, when the driver was not in fact such a holder. The prosecutor appealed his acquittal.
Held: Considering Newbury v Davis. The justices did not find that he imposed a condition on the use of the van. They found that he permitted the van to be used in the honest and mistaken belief that all would be well. That is not enough on authority to excuse him and the justices were wrong here in deciding that they could acquit.
Judges:
Lord Widgery CJ
Citations:
[1975] RTR 453
Statutes:
Citing:
Distinguished – Newbury v Davis QBD 1974
The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner’s absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance.
Held: The appeal against conviction was . .
Cited by:
Applied – Ferrymasters Ltd v Adams 1980
Employers were alleged to have caused or permitted an employee to drive a vehicle on the road while not holding a driving licence authorising him to do so. When the employee had entered the employment, the employers had ensured that he held a valid . .
Cited – Philip Owen Lloyd-Wolper v Robert Moore; National Insurance Guarantee Corporation Plc, Charles Moore CA 22-Jun-2004
The first defendant drove a car belonging to his father and insured by his father. The father consented to the driving but under a mistaken belief that his son was licensed. The claimant was injured by the defendant in a road traffic accident.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.199926