Taleb v Trina Coaches Ltd: CA 5 Oct 2009

The claimant cyclist said that the defendant’s coach driver had caught her handlebar causing her to fall and be injured as he passed her on Euston Road. She appealed against a decision that she had not established that the driver was at fault, despite having found the driver’s evidence to be inconsistent. She said that the judge had incorrectly relied on and misinterpreted the CCTV evidence.
Held: The judge had rejected the claimant’s evidence for no good reason. Her error was not a sufficient basis for his conclusion. The CCTV evidence did not show the actual event, and the judge had been wrong to rely on it to overrule her evidence. Though an appeal court will only rarely reverse a judge’s interpretation of the facts and evidence, this was one case where they should, and the appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Smith LJ, Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1250

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.381577

McNight v Davies: 1974

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’.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1974] RTR 4

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedRegina v Phipps CACD 1970
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedMcMminn v McMinn and Another QBD 11-Apr-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.242638

Stinton v Stinton and Another: CA 5 Jan 1995

A passenger who was effectively involved in a joint enterprise with a drunk driver has no claim against Motor Insurers Bureau under the scheme. The MIB was not liable to a passenger who was aware that the driver had no insurance.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Jan-1995, Times 23-Nov-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89560

Regina v David Newton: 1974

The Lord Chief Justice was unable to accept that someone with 127 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, a little over half the legal limit, did not feel any effect. The process of considering whether special reasons might avoid a disqualification, the magistrates had a two stage. First to test the evidence to see whether special reasons existed, and second whether as an exercise of discretion, they should not disqualify.

Citations:

[1974] RTR 451

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v O’Connor and Chapman and Others 1991
The court looked at the elements needed to be established to support a defence to a charge of driving with excess alcohol on the basis that the defendant’s drinks had been spiked: ‘On the authorities, it is now clearly established that the matters . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Sharma Admn 27-Apr-2005
The prosecution appealed by way of case stated a finding by the magistrates of special reasons for the non-disqualification of the respondent for driving with excess alcohol. The defendant had drunk acohol, but unknown to her a friend had added . .
CitedWoolfe v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jun-2006
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.226028

Scott v Jelf: 1974

The defendant was accused of driving whilst disqualified. He drove in breach of the conditions of a provisional licence having been disqualified until he took the test.
Held: Lord Widgery CJ: ‘That provision has appeared in the road traffic legislation for a good many years and its purpose is obvious. If the man has to take a test before his disqualification can be removed, then machinery must be provided to enable him to take the test. Taking the test involves driving on a road and thus involves the obtaining by him of a provisional licence, as was done in this case. If the defendant had been driving on the road with a qualified passenger he would have committed no offence because, although still disqualified within the meaning of section 99, he would have the specific excuse provided for him by section 98(3). He did not have a qualified driver, and the issue in this case is whether the fact that he drove in defiance of the conditions attached to a provisional licence had the effect of removing the protection of section 98(3) altogether so as to make him a driver driving when disqualified, or whether it had prosecuted under section 88(6) of the Act for failing to comply with the terms of a provisional licence. That is the issue.’ and ‘I find myself left in absolutely no doubt that section 98(3) is carefully worded so as to allow a disqualified driver to use a provisional licence on the road provided he complies with the terms of the provisional licence. I think that that is the only meaning which can be derived from the language used if given its ordinary meaning. The terms of section 98(3) provide an exemption for a disqualified driver driving on a road provided that he holds a provisional licence and drives in accordance with the provisions of that licence. I cannot understand why specific reference should have been made to driving in accordance with the conditions of the provisional licence unless it was intended that the exemption provided by the subsection should be restricted to those who drive in accordance with the provisional licence to which it refers.’ MacKenna J: ‘A person disqualified for holding a licence until he has passed another driving test is a disqualified person within the meaning of section 99. He is forbidden to drive unless he can bring himself within section 98(3). That subsection gives him a limited right to drive, notwithstanding the provisions of section 99. He can drive if he obtains a provisional licence and if he drives in accordance with the conditions subject to which it is granted. That is what section 98(3) says and it cannot reasonably be given any other meaning. If the disqualified person drives otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of the provisional licence, he loses the protection of this subsection and is caught by section 99.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J

Citations:

[1974] RTR 256

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Barker Admn 19-Oct-2004
Driving whilst disqualified – ban expired but no test taken – burden of evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.220169

Regina v Wickins: 1958

The court prescribed four requirements for a special reason: namely, it must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance; it must not in law amount to a defence; it must be directly connected with the commission of the offence; and the matter must be one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing punishment. The divisional court this court should be slow to interfere with a Justices’ decision in this area, where they have properly directed themselves as to the law and taken proper considerations into account.

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1958] 42 Cr App R 236

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Conroy Admn 23-Jun-2003
The DPP appealed a finding of special reasons for not disqualifying the defendant after finding him guilty of driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped driving at excess speed, he had driven over a mile and had a further two hundred yards to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187501

Mallard v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1990

Citations:

[1990] 91 Crim App R 108

Statutes:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chambers Admn 25-Jul-2003
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of charges of driving with excess alcohol. The defendant had admited driving, but said she had consumed alcohol in the twenty minutes between driving and the police coming to her home. Expert evidence had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187464

Hunter v Butler: 1986

Citations:

[1986] RTR 396

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHewison v Meridian Shipping Pte, Coflexip Stena Offshore Ltd, Flex Installer Offshore Ltd CA 11-Dec-2002
The claimant was awarded damages for injuries suffered in his work as a seaman. The respondents claimed that he should not receive damages, since he had made false declarations as to his health in order to obtain employment, hiding his epilepsy . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.183224

Badkin v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1988

The defendant driver had provided two specimens of breath at the police station. The device used failed to provide a printout and the constable operating it decided that it could be unreliable. He required the defendant to provide a specimen of blood, which the defendant did. The part-specimen of blood retained by the police was analysed but no evidence of the blood analysis was produced at the trial. No notice of analysis results was given to the defendant. The defendant appealed his conviction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Once the constable decided that the device analysing breath was not reliable, any prosecution could be based only the subsequent blood analysis. However, Glidewell LJ said: ‘Secondly, . . the failure by the prosecution to give notice to the defendant of the results of the blood analysis, and to call evidence of the results of that analysis, is a breach of the requirement in Section 10(2) of the [predecessor] Act that ‘Evidence of the proportion of alcohol . . in a specimen of . . blood . . provided by the accused shall in all cases be taken into account.
It follows, therefore, that even if a prosecution for driving with excess alcohol in the breath could properly proceed in the circumstances of the present case (which I do not accept), it was still necessary for the results of the blood analysis to be put in evidence. The failure to do so, in my judgment, vitiated the prosecution case.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, McNeill J

Citations:

[1988] RTR 401

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBreckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
CitedSmith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
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 . .
CitedMurphy v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 20-Jun-2006
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor should have put in evidence the results of the roadside breath test. Mitting J referred to the case of Badkin: ‘But nothing in the judgment of Glidewell LJ leads to the conclusion that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.259150

Rayner v Hampshire Chief Constable: 1971

A breathalyser bag with a hole in it was not equipment which comprised a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State.

Citations:

[1971] RTR 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBreckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.259151

Crown Prosecution Service v Sedgemoor Justices: Admn 3 Jul 2007

Prosecutors appeal against refusal to accept evidence from academic toxicologist who was not an ‘authorised analyst’ of blood alcohol levels. Whether only ‘authorised analyst’ able to give evidence.

Judges:

Hughes LJ, Treacy J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1803 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988, 591)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.258812

Sykes v Millington: 1953

Prosecution for an offence under section 2(3) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933.

Citations:

[1953] 1 All ER 1098

Statutes:

Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedViasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2005
Severe flood damage had been caused to a factory, where air-conditioning was being installed, by the negligence of a fitter’s mate; the fitter and his mate had been supplied on a labour only basis by the third defendant to the second defendant to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Road Traffic

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.231006

Regina – – Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Taussik: 7 Jun 2000

Even business premises will be ‘public’ if the location is a public service, a railway station, a hospital or other public utility.

Citations:

Unreported, 7 June 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMay v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Apr-2005
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.231475

O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions: 27 Mar 2000

Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him.

Citations:

Unreported, 27 March 2000

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoO’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 4-Nov-1998
The court considered and gave directions for the form of statement of case submitted by the magistrates. . .

Cited by:

CitedGrant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jan-2003
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have . .
CitedBreckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
CitedSmith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
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 . .
CitedSmith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.187205

Wright v Freeway Haulage Limited: CA 22 Apr 1999

A collision occurred between a heavy lorry and a motor car travelling in the opposite direction: ‘I am not, however, persuaded that the judge was correct to conclude that the speed of this very wide articulated lorry and its load made no causative contribution to the accident. [A finding of excessive speed had been made.] It is a short point. But, in my view, to drive a lorry with a 15 ft 6 ins wide load at or approaching 50 miles per hour on a bend of a single carriageway which was nearly 4 ft narrower than the load was negligent, and the negligence contributed to the accident. Driving more slowly would have enabled Mr Mangan to manoeuvre more carefully and would also have given the oncoming drivers, including but not limited to the plaintiff, a greater opportunity to take any necessary evasive action safely.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1233

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPuffett (A Minor) v Hayfield CA 16-Dec-2005
The defendant appealed from a finding that she had been driving too quickly when a child ran out between parked cars in front of her and was hit. The judge found that she must have been driving at 28mph or more.
Held: ‘I am not prepared to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.146148

Haycocks, Regina (on the Application Of) v Worcester Crown Court: Admn 15 May 2007

Renewed application for leave to seek judicial review of the crown court in dismissing his appeal against conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The judge had refused an adjournment to allow fresh counsel to be instructed, and had behaved in a discourteous and biased manner. He had said that the police had forced their way into his house and used CS gas and otherwise behaved so improperly that the evidence should not have been admitted.
Held: On such an application, the court was limited to seeing whether no court could resonably have concluded as the first instance judge had. The claimant had not established what he needed to establish and the leave was refused.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2127 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Legal Professions

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.259637

Director of Public Prosecutions v Tooze: Admn 24 Jul 2007

Prsoecutor’s appeal against dismissal of charge of driving with excess alcohol. The dfeendant was arrested only some time after he had been driving and after he had consumed further alcohol.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2186 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.259841

Small v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1995

The expressions ‘permissible maximum weight’ and ‘maximum permissible weight’ are interchangeable.

Citations:

[1995] RTR 95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPritchard and Another v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 28-Jul-2003
The defendants appealed convictions for operating vehicles without tachographs. The issue arose upon the combined weight of vehicle and trailer exceeding the maximum.
Held: The legislation seems to be directed at providing maximum driving . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.187436

Plumb v Ayres and Ryford Limited: CA 17 Mar 1999

Appeals in personal injury cases against a judge’s finding on liability are very unlikely to succeed, and in future, leave to appeal should only be given where there is a clear evidence that the judge had made an error of principle. However, Brook LJ said, exceptional circumstances may arise where the judge erred in principle, misapprehended the facts or he is clearly shown to have been wrong.

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

Times 11-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWells v Mutchmeats Ltd and Another CA 28-Feb-2006
. .
CitedWhitehead v Bruce and Others CA 21-Mar-2013
The three defendants each appealed against apportionment of liability for serious personal injuries incurred in a road traffic accident. The first defendant a motor cycle driver, with the claimant his pillion passenger took suddent action to evade a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145925

Linse, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of North Wales Police: Admn 29 May 2020

Whether a certificate of motor insurance which may be avoided for non-disclosure is nevertheless a ‘valid’ certificate of insurance within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1288 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651097

Smeaton v Harrow Crown Court: Admn 9 Jul 2007

Renewed application for leave to bring judicial review of magistrates not to find special reasons for not imposing mandatory disqualification after conviction for driving with excess alcohol. Suggestion that drinks had been laced.

Judges:

Hughes LJ, Treacy J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3142 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPugsley v Hunter 1973
The court discussed the basis of a submission that there existed special reasons for non-disqualification for driving whilst under the influence of drink when the driver’s drinks had been spiked. It was necessary for the applicant to show first, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.263483

Regina v Seward: 1970

The section in the 1967Act required as a precondition to a request for a breath specimen that an accident had occurred. The defendant complained that this was an issue of fact, but had been decided by the deputy chairman and not the jury.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘The issue whether there was an accident or not is not a matter which gives rise to a discretion of the court, it is a vital question going to guilt on this charge, because if the prosecution decide to base their proceedings upon the allegation that an accident occurred, they have to prove it as one of the essential factors in the case. Accordingly the deputy chairman, in our judgment, was wholly wrong in taking this issue away from the jury and determining it himself as he did.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1970] RTR 102

Statutes:

Road Safety Act 1967 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Morris 1972
Whether the particular facts of a case amount to an accident is a question of law. In a case of disputed facts under s2(2) of the 1967 Act it is for the jury to decide the facts and apply to the facts found the judge’s direction as to the meaning of . .
CitedCurrie, Regina v CACD 26-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. The failure of the police to serve him with a notice of intended prosecution invalidated the conviction. The police replied that there was no need for such a notice because there had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.251520

Director of Public Prosections v Kayaz: 1999

The onus was on the driver of a vehicle to prove that he had a valid driving licence and insurance.

Citations:

[1999] RTR 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hay QBD 13-Jun-2005
The driver was unconscious following an accident. The police attended the accident. He was acquitted of later failing to report the accident to the police. The prosecutor appealed. The car had crashed as the police pursued it. No notice had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.228585

Sophocleous v Ringer: 1988

Citations:

[1988] RTR 52 DC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Minors, Regina v Harper CACD 14-Dec-1988
In each case, the prosecution had produced a computer record to the court as evidence. The record was a computer print out. They challenged their convictions.
Held: To admit such evidence, the court had to see compliance with both sections. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.182953

Regina v Nicholson and Another, Secretary of State for Environment and others: Admn 20 Dec 1996

N objected to the reclassification of a public footpath over his farm as a byway open to all traffic, saying that there had been insufficient evidence to establish a dedication at common law.
Held: N’s appeal failed. ‘A track can become a highway by reason of the dedication of the right of passage to the public by the owner of the soil and the acceptance of that right by the public. Dedication means that the owner of the soil has either said in so many words, or so conducted himself or herself as to lead the public to infer that he or she was willing that the public should have this right of passage’

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 393, [1996] COD 296

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 54, Highways Act 1980 31, Rights of Way Act 1932

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJones v Bates CA 1938
The court considered whether there had been an act by the landowner sufficient to amount to a dedication a path as a public right of way. Scott LJ said that actual dedication was ‘often a pure legal fiction [which] put on the affirmant of the public . .
CitedJaques v Secretary of State for the Environment 1995
Laws pointed out that the law on dedication of had moved forward, saying: ‘Taking the passage cited from Scott LJ in Jones v Bates as a full and convenient description of the common law, it seemed that the material change effected by the statute of . .
CitedFairey v Southampton City Council CA 1956
The landowner denied that a public right of way had been created over his land. Under the 1932 Act, 20 years user expiring at any time, even before the Act came into force, was capable of giving rise to a deemed dedication of a public highway under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.136941

Martin v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 30 Nov 1999

When a driver suffers an obligatory disqualification through a drink driving offence, the court may not at the same time impose on his licence additional penalty points for offences associated with the events of the drink driving offence. The 1988 Act was a consolidating act, and was not to be construed so as to change the law in the absence of clear intention. The omission of certain words was not enough to evince that intention.

Citations:

Times 30-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 44(1), Road Traffic Act 1972 9(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.83440

Rosser v Lindsay: CA 4 Feb 1999

The use of mirrors when manouvering a road vehicle is only advisory under the Highway Code. It is not mandatory, and a judge could not be criticised for not requiring such a counsel of perfection in a situation where a vehicle was being driven within a builder’s yard.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1999, Times 25-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 708

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145623

Goodes v East Sussex County Council: CA 7 Jan 1999

A council which failed to maintain a road ice free when they had decided on the need to prevent icing, and had had the opportunity to prevent it, but failed to take it, were in breach of statutory duty and liable for damages to driver of crashed car. (Aldous LJ dissenting)

Judges:

Hutchinson and Morritt LJJ, Aldous LJ

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1999, Times 07-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Feb-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 1964, [1999] RTR 210

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 41 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
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 . .
CitedJones v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council CA 15-Jul-2008
The claimant, a fireman, sought damages for injuries suffered when he was injured answering a call out. He fell into a depressed area by the road side as he was pulling away a burning wooden pallet.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Torts – Other

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.80912

Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council: HL 1989

The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.
Held: Before the Acts of Union, Scots law did not have the same presumption as English law that a statute was not binding on the Crown unless explicitly so made, and there were Scottish cases suggesting that the rule was rather different there. Lord Keith said that there were no rational grounds for adopting a different approach to the construction of statutes in Scotland and in England and that the modern English approach should prevail.

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Citations:

[1990] 2 AC 580, [1990] 1 All ER 1, [1989] 3 WLR 1346

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedAttorney General v Hancock 1940
The Crown could enforce a debt for unpaid income tax without the leave of the court, not being bound by the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act 1939, which prohibited enforcement without leave. . .
CitedThe Province of Bombay v The Municipal Corporation of The City of Bombay and Another PC 10-Oct-1946
(Bombay) The Board considered whether the Crown was bound by section 222(1) and section 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act 1888, which in effect gave the Municipality power to carry water mains for the purposes of water supply through, across . .
CitedMadras Electric Supply Corp Ltd v Boarland House of Lords HL 11-Mar-1955
Income Tax, Schedule D – Balancing charge – Succession by Crown – Whether cessation provisions apply – Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Schedule D, Cases I and II, Rule 11 ; Finance Act, 1926 (16 and 17 Geo. V, c. 22), Section 32.
CitedThe British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 5-Mar-1964
The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory . .

Cited by:

CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Road Traffic, Constitutional

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651105

Cooper v Hawkins: 1904

Vehicles driven by Crown servants on Crown business were not subject to the speed limits laid down by the local authority under the Locomotives Act 1865.

Citations:

[1904] 2 KB 164

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

NotedGorton Local Board v Prison Comrs (Note) 1887
The Prison Commissioners were not bound by local by-laws made under the Public Health Act 1875, requiring the local authority to certify that newly built houses were fit for human habitation. . .

Cited by:

CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Constitutional

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651107

Rouse v Squires: CA 22 Mar 1973

Citations:

[1973] EWCA Civ 9, [1972] 2 All ER 903, [1973] 2 WLR 925, [1973] RTR 550, [1973] QB 889

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDymond v Pearce CA 13-Jan-1972
A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident.
Held: The appeal failed. . .

Cited by:

CitedHoughton v Stannard QBD 29-Oct-2003
. .
CitedHughes v Guise Motors Ltd QBD 1-Nov-2007
The claimant’s car had cut out while being driven on a motorway. The driver had been able to pull onto chevrons at a junction but not onto the hard shoulder. The defendant drove into the rear of the vehicle.
Held: The driver had attempted to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.262736

Mohindra v Director of Public Prosecutions; Browne v The Chief Constable Of Greater Manchester: Admn 15 Mar 2004

The defendants had been required to provide information leading to the identification of the driver. In one case the defendant was the registered keepr, and in the second not.
Held: the obligations differed according to whether it was addressed to the registered keeper. In the one case to gave the information, and under the second, to provide such information as they had. The two differing obligations created two offences. As charged the offences were bad for duplicity.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 490 (Admin), Times 30-Mar-2004, [2005] RTR 7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 172(2)(a)172(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.194702

AXA Insurance UK Ltd v EUI Ltd (T/A Elephant Insurance): QBD 14 May 2020

The claimant insurer had insured a garage in respect of a car it used for loan to customers when their own car was being repaired. There was a collision on the customer driving home from work. The defendant insurer was the driver’s own insurer. The parties disputed responsibility allocation as between them and the nature of the use – whether as a ‘private motor car’ or for ‘social, domestic and pleasure use’.
Held:

Judges:

Foster J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1207 (QB), [2020] WLR(D) 286

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPassmore v Vulcan Boiler and General Insurance Co Ltd 1936
. .
CitedSeddon v Binions CA 1978
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, . .
CitedAXN and Others v Worboys and Others QBD 25-Jun-2012
W had used his taxi driving as an oportunity to drug and then rape passengers. He had been prosecuted for several offences, and the court now considered whether additional civil actions could proceed, claiming under his road traffic insurance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650820

Nembhard v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 21 Jan 2009

The defendant appealed against his conviction for failing to produce his driving documents, saying that the local police had stopped some 55 times in the previous 12 months, and that the request was improper and an abuse.
Held: ‘An officer can only require a driver to produce his licence if the requirement is for the purpose specified in section 164(1), namely ‘so as to enable the constable to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which it was issued’. Accordingly, if the officer requires production not in order to ascertain those matters, for example because he is already aware of them, but in order to discomfort, inconvenience and harass the driver, the requirement is not lawful and the driver commits no offence by failing to comply with it.’ However, there was insufficient evidence to supporty the suggestion that the officer did not have a proper purpose in this case.
The court noted that it was difficult to understand how a police force could justify stopping a particular person once a week for a year when no other charhges had resulted.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 194 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAbdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 24-Nov-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to discontinue the prosecution of the claimant. The judge had suggested that the defendant could submit to a restraining order without a finding of guilt. The CPS had concluded that no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.311788

Seddon v Binions: CA 1978

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, domestic or pleasure purposes’ used in a policy of insurance . . there will be cases which will fall on one side of the line and cases which will fall on the other side. For my part, however much claims managers might wish it otherwise, I do not believe it is possible to state any firm principle under which it can always be predicted which side of the line a particular case will fall. It must depend on the facts of the particular case; and the facts of particular cases will vary infinitely in their detail.’ and ‘It seems to me that the solution to the problem can best be reached in this case by asking the question: what was the essential character of the journey in the course of which the particular accident occurred?’ and ‘It may well be that there will be cases, as there have been in the past, where the essential character . . of a particular journey was of a particular kind – and that that essential character will not be altered in the crucial respects merely because, incidental to that journey, something happens in the way of giving a lift to a friend as an act of courtesy or, to borrow Mr Justice du Parcq’s expression [in Passmore v Vulcan Boiler and General Insurance Co Ltd (1936) 54 Ll L R 92], charity.’ Megaw LJ: ‘[I]n general, I should have thought that there is something that can clearly be called, as I would put it, a primary purpose, by which I intend the same meaning, I think, as Roskill LJ intended in using the phrase ‘essential character of the journey’. If there be such a primary purpose, or essential character, then the Courts should not be meticulous to seek to find some possible secondary purpose, or some inessential character, the result of which could be suggested to be that the use of the car fell outside the proper use for the purposes of which cover was given by the insurance policy.’

Judges:

Roskill LJ, Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 381, [1978] RTR 163

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKeeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s CA 10-Nov-2004
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 . .
AppliedCaple v Sewell and others CA 9-Nov-2001
. .
CitedAXA Insurance UK Ltd v EUI Ltd (T/A Elephant Insurance) QBD 14-May-2020
The claimant insurer had insured a garage in respect of a car it used for loan to customers when their own car was being repaired. There was a collision on the customer driving home from work. The defendant insurer was the driver’s own insurer. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.220134

Griffin v Squires: 1958

To count as a road in road traffic law, a stretch of land must at least be a road. A car park was held not to be a road.

Citations:

[1958] 1 WLR 1106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedClarke v Kato and Others; Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd HL 25-Nov-1998
Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.194255

Bugge v Taylor: 1941

A branch of a road which leads into and continues out of the place in question, such as in this case, a forecourt may qualify as a road.

Citations:

[1941] 1 KB 198

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedClarke v Kato and Others; Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd HL 25-Nov-1998
Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.194257

Richardson v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 20 Feb 2003

The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the device used to make the measurement did not have type approval.
Held: The appeal failed. Stanley Burnton J considered the issue of type approval of a breath analysis device and said that a device may not be an approved device because it never complied with the description of the device contained in the approval order. Alterations may have been made to it during the course of time as to take it out of the description in the schedule to the order. It would seem that a device which did not include the intoximeter EC/IR gas delivery system, by way of example, or a software version which was not a UK 5.23, but some significantly different version, would not be an approved device. However: ‘It does not follow that from every modification to an Intoximeter takes it out of approval, far from it. The alteration must be such in my judgment that the description in the schedule of the order no longer applies to it.’
If the only contention was that the modifications to the Intoximeter device had been such that it was no longer in the same condition as it had been when the Secretary of State’s approval was given that could not amount to the defence. It had to be shown that the modifications were such that it was no longer an approved device.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 359 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCoxon v Manchester City Magistrates Court Admn 11-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of the magistrate’s refusal to state a case for an appeal against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the intoximeter used had not received type approval as required. The defendant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.185000

Dunmill, Regina (On the Application of) v Director Of Public Prosecutions: Admn 5 Jul 2004

The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He had driven his car within a camping site at Hayling Island. He might have been charged with driving on a road or other public place, but was charged with driving on a road. It was too late on appeal to widen the wording. The site contained some 350 plots, on 180 of which caravans were sited, with a tarmac perimeter road and what were described as ‘grass roadways’ between the caravan and tent pitch sites. The Justices were advised by their clerk: ”Road’ means any highway and any other road to which the public has access . . In determining whether a place is a ‘road’ for the purposes of the 1988 Act, the question to be asked, if the place is not a highway, is whether it is a road to which the general public have actual and legal access. A road has the physical character of a defined or definable route or way, with ascertained or ascertainable edges, leading from one point to another with the function of serving as a means of access enabling travellers to move conveniently from one point to another along a definable route.’ The Justices convicted on the basis that the place where he was driving was one to which the public had access.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Justices had concentrated on that question without first considering the logically anterior question whether this was a road at all. mcCombie J said: ‘Looking at the evidence which the justices recite in their case, the only material that we find is that the collision, to which admittedly Mr Dunmill was a party, occurred on a grass area, and there was the evidence of Mr MacCullum who had seen skid marks, not necessarily near the collision site, but apparently near the tent where the appellant had been staying, which strayed onto a roadway. It does not seem to me, therefore, that that slender evidence was sufficient to take the site in this case out of what one might generically have thought a caravan site to be, namely not ‘a road’ as such. Moreover, it seems to me that those two features of evidence were not sufficient in any event to establish this as being a road within the meaning of the charge.’

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1700 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBarrett v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Feb-2009
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He had driven on a roadway within a caravan park. A public footpath (a highway) went through the park. There were gates at the entrance but these were kept open. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.327989

Cogley v Sherwood: 1959

It is the exhibition of the vehicle for hire through the agency of the driver which is the essence of the offence of plying for hire, unlicensed.

Citations:

[1959] WLR 781

Statutes:

Metropolitan Police Public Carriage Act 1869 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOddy, Regina (on the Application of) v Bugbugs Ltd Admn 12-Nov-2003
A private prosecutor appealed dismissal of his complaint that the respondent had operated an unlicensed man-powered rickshaw service. The district judge had held that it was not a taxi service. It was, under the 1869 Act a stage carriage and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.193390

Mighell v Reading and Another and Evans v Motor Insurers Bureau and White v White and Another: CA 30 Sep 1998

Passengers were injured in motor vehicles. The drivers were uninsured, and the MIB had declined to make payment. The doctrine of direct effect did not apply where the allegation was that the Motor Insurers Bureau arrangement did not comply with a European Directive. It was not clear whether the Bureau was an emanation of state, but government had had a choice of institutions through which to implement the Directive. As to the nature of the MIB: ‘Its members are private law insurance companies who have chosen for the time being to write motor insurance business. It is true that they have a statutory position in that it is compulsory for the user of a motor vehicle on the road to take out a policy with a company which is a member of the Bureau. (Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988). But the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme has been in existence from a time earlier than the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Communities (or Union) and agreements between the Bureau and the Secretary of State relating to uninsured drivers and untraced drivers have long formed part of that scheme.’

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1465, [1999] 1 LLR 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromEvans v Motor Insurance Bureau ComC 29-Jul-1997
ComC Untraced Drivers Scheme of the Motor Insurers Bureau – obligation to award interest – power to award interest under section 19A of the 1950 Act. . .
See AlsoEvans v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA 18-Jan-2001
. .

Cited by:

Appealed toEvans v Motor Insurance Bureau ComC 29-Jul-1997
ComC Untraced Drivers Scheme of the Motor Insurers Bureau – obligation to award interest – power to award interest under section 19A of the 1950 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144944

Commission v Italy C-110/05: ECJ 5 Oct 2006

(Free Movement Of Goods) Opinion AG Leger – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 28 EC – Free movement of goods – National rules prohibiting mopeds from towing a trailer – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Justification – Road safety – Proportionality

Citations:

[2006] EUECJ C-110/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionCommission v Italy (Free Movement Of Goods) ECJ 10-Feb-2009
ecJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Article 28 EC Concept of ‘measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports’ Prohibition on mopeds, motorcycles, motor tricycles and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, European

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650828

Macleod v Hamilton: 1965

Unless an authority which makes a traffic control order complies with the requirements imposed on the making of such an order and the publication of the order is adequate, any offence which it purports to create cannot be effectively prosecuted.
Lord Clyde said: ‘It was an integral part of the statutory scheme for a traffic regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs should be given to the public using the roads which were restricted so as to warn users of their obligations. Unless these traffic signs were there accordingly and the opportunity was thus afforded to the public to know what they could not legally do, no offence would be committed. It would, indeed, be anomalous and absurd were the position otherwise.’
Lord Migdale said: ‘the order is not effective unless and until the council complies with Regulation 15(c) and erects road signs at the locus. Signs were erected but they were not the proper ones nor were they clear.’

Judges:

Lord Clyde, Lord Migdale

Citations:

[1965] SLT 305, 1965 SLT 305

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

AppliedJames v Cavey QBD 1967
The council introduced regulations restricting parking at a site on alternate weeks between certain hours. The ‘no parking’ signes were covered over with an unrestricted parking sign when parking was permitted. The defendant parked and left his car . .
CitedHerron and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parking Adjudicator CA 27-Jul-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.442551

James v South Glamorgan County Council: 1992

On trial of a charge of supplying a motor vehicle in an un-roadworthy condition, a prosecution witness (the person to whom the vehicle was supplied) had difficulty in locating the Court House. Before he arrived, the prosecution had closed its case, and the defendant had given evidence in chief, but there had been no submission. The Justices allowed the prosecution to re-open its case.
Held: The appeal failed. The Justices had a discretionary power to admit the evidence, but the issue was as to the circumstances in which that power should be exercised. The stressed the exceptional nature of the contingency, and the fact that the Justices seemed to have been satisfied that the evidence could be admitted without unfairness to the defendant.

Judges:

Leggatt LJ

Citations:

[1992] RTR 312

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Pilcher 1974
The prosecutor had closed his case, and the defendant had presented some evidence. It became clear that the prosecutor had failed to present evidence on one element, and the defendant appealed his conviction after the prosecutor had been allowed to . .

Cited by:

CitedChristopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195676

Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham: CA 28 Jul 1961

The plaintff sought damages after a collision, but the car had already been damaged in a previous accident, the repair of which would cover the second accident. Lord Evershed MR said: ‘In my judgment in the present case the defendant should be taken to have injured a motor-car that was already in certain respects (that is in respect of the need for respraying) injured; with the result that to the extent of that need or injury the damage claimed did not flow from the defendant’s wrongdoing. It may no doubt be unfortunate for the plaintiffs that the collisions took place in the order in which they did.’
Donovan LJ said: ‘The question as I see it is this: what extra burden in the matter of respraying was put upon the plaintiff company by the second collision? To my mind the answer must be: None, for the earlier collision had already imposed the burden of respraying upon them.’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR, Harman LJ, Donovan LJ

Citations:

[1961] EWCA Civ 3, [1961] 3 All ER 413, [1961] 3 WLR 749, [1962] 1 QB 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHalsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Road Traffic

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.262813

James v Cavey: QBD 1967

The council introduced regulations restricting parking at a site on alternate weeks between certain hours. The ‘no parking’ signes were covered over with an unrestricted parking sign when parking was permitted. The defendant parked and left his car at a time when the signs were covered, but was then given a ticket after the covers were removed when the restrictions came back into effect. He appealed his conviction.
Held: The conviction was quashed.
Winn LJ said: ‘regulation 15, by sub-paragraph (c) . . [prescribed] that the authority should take forthwith
‘all such steps as are reasonably practicable to cause to be erected on or near to the said roads traffic signs in such positions as the local authority may consider to be requisite’ – and here come the operative words in my opinion – ‘for the purpose of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is given to persons using the said roads’
The authority should take all such steps as are reasonably practicable for the purpose of securing that adequate information is given to persons using the said roads.
The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.’

Judges:

Winn LJ, Ashworth and Widgery JJ

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 676, [1967] 2 WLR 1239, [1967] 1 All ER 1048

Statutes:

Traffic Regulation Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1961

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedMacleod v Hamilton 1965
Unless an authority which makes a traffic control order complies with the requirements imposed on the making of such an order and the publication of the order is adequate, any offence which it purports to create cannot be effectively prosecuted.

Cited by:

AppliedDavies v Heatley QBD 1971
The defendant appealed, by case stated, against his conviction of failing to stay to the left of a continuous white line. An intermittent white line had been placed between the two continuous white lines. The magistrates convicted saying that the . .
CitedHerron and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parking Adjudicator CA 27-Jul-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.251550

Commission v Italy (Free Movement Of Goods): ECJ 10 Feb 2009

ecJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Article 28 EC Concept of ‘measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports’ Prohibition on mopeds, motorcycles, motor tricycles and quadricycles towing a trailer in the territory of a Member State Road safety Market access Obstacle Proportionality.

Citations:

C-110/05, [2009] EUECJ C-110/05, [2009] 2 CMLR 34, [2009] ECR 519, ECLI:EU:C:2009:66, [2009] All ER (EC) 796, [2009] ECR I-519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionCommission v Italy C-110/05 ECJ 5-Oct-2006
(Free Movement Of Goods) Opinion AG Leger – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 28 EC – Free movement of goods – National rules prohibiting mopeds from towing a trailer – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent . .

Cited by:

CitedScotch Whisky Association and Others v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 15-Nov-2017
The Association challenged the imposition of minimum pricing systems for alcohol, saying that it was in breach of European law. After a reference to the ECJ, the Court now considered its legality.
Held: The Association’s appeal failed. Minimum . .
CitedScotch Whisky Association And Others v Lord Advocate, Advocate General for Scotland ECJ 23-Dec-2015
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products – Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Free movement of goods – Article 34 TFEU – Quantitative . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Road Traffic

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.286155

Garner v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1990

The court considered the admissibility of evidence produced by a prescribed device for measuring breath alcohol levels.
Held: The record (the printout from a Lion Intoximeter device) was admissible either under the statutory provision without the necessity of calling any witness to produce it or as real evidence, if produced by someone who was able to identify the exhibit and link it to the case against the defendant.
Stocker LJ said: ‘The question can be put in this form? Was the printout admissible? The argument that it was not depends upon the proposition that is admissibility arises solely from the terms of section 10(3) of the Act of 1972. For my part, I do not agree that such admissibility does arise solely through the terms of that section. In my view it was, quite apart from that section, an admissible document at common law as representing real evidence.’
Roch LJ: ‘As real evidence, such a printout can be proved, as any other real evidence can be proved, namely by being produced as an exhibit by a witness who can identify what the exhibit is and link it to the case against a defendant. Once the exhibit is properly proved in that way it speaks for itself.’

Judges:

Stocker LJ, Roch LJ

Citations:

[1990] RTR 208

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGriffiths v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2007
Photographic output was part of device process
The defendant appealed his conviction for speeding, complaining at the technical accuracy of the Gatso camera used, and the use of photographs developed from pictures taken by the cameras.
Held: The photographs used for analysis were records . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.250486

Lyons v May: 1948

A person who was ignorant of the fact that there was no policy of insurance covering a vehicle may be guilty of an offence if he permits the use of the vehicles while uninsured.

Citations:

[1948] 2 All ER 1062

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1930 35(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPhilip 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: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.199930

Drummond v Regina: CACD 7 Mar 2002

The appellant had been convicted of causing death by careless driving with excess alcohol. He said that he had taken alcohol after stopping driving but before being tested. He challenged the weight of the burden of proof ascribed by the statute. The judge had directed the jury that he faced a persuasive burden of establishing that he would not have been over the limit. He said this infringed the assumption of innocence.
Held: Any restriction on the presumption of innocence must be justified. The offence differs from those previously considered in that the test is not as to the intention of the accused, but as to the results of a scientific test. Any inexactness in the scientific test will work in favour of the accused, it is the accused who has done something, by drinking after an accident, to make the scientific test less reliable, and it is within the control of the defendant to say how much he had drunk. The interference with the defendant’s human rights was reasonable and no more than was necessary.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mckinnon

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 527, [2002] RTR 21, [2002] 2 Cr App Rep 25, [2002] Crim LR 666

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 3A, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSalabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
CitedAttorney General of Hong Kong v Lee Kwong-Kut PC 1993
(Hong Kong) In order to maintain the balance between the individual and the society as a whole, rigid and inflexible standards should not be imposed on the legislature’s attempts to resolve the difficult and intransigent problems with which society . .
CitedAttorney General of the Caymen Islands and others v Even Wahr-Hansen PC 26-Jun-2000
(Caymen Islands) A memorandum of agreement that proceeds of a trust fund should be paid to ‘any one or more religious, charitable or educational institutions . . or . . operating for the public good’ was not charitable since it the objects were not . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chambers Admn 25-Jul-2003
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of charges of driving with excess alcohol. The defendant had admited driving, but said she had consumed alcohol in the twenty minutes between driving and the police coming to her home. Expert evidence had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.167728

Whittall v Kirkby: 1946

Special reasons for non-disqualification of a driver were defined as being reasons which, first, constitute mitigating or extenuating circumstances; secondly, do not amount in law to a defence to the charge; thirdly, are directly connected with the commission of the offence; and, fourthly, which the court ought properly to take into consideration when considering imposing sentence

Citations:

[1946] 2 All ER 552, [1947] KB 194

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKhan, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Oct-2004
Defendant pleaded guity to drink driving – claim for special reasons – appeal against finding of absence of special reasons to disqualify. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.220231

Hayling v Harper and Another: CA 2 Apr 2003

The case asked whether vehicular user of a public footpath in breach of section 34(1) of the 1988 Act could lead to the acquisition by prescription of a public right of way.
Held: Hanning barred a claim to the easement under section 2 of the 1832 Act. The user relied on had been illegal since 1930 and the claimants could not, therefore, rely on the user between 1930 and the commencement of the proceedings. The evidence of user pre 1930 enabled the claimants to establish the acquisition of an easement by lost modern grant before the advent of section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1930.

Judges:

Ward LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1147

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988, Prescription Act 1832 2, Road Traffic Act 1930 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Relied uponHanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .

Cited by:

CitedBakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Road Traffic

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.185293

Wolman v London Borough of Islington and Another: CA 31 Jul 2007

The defendant had been given parking tickets for having parked his motor cycle so as to contravene the regulations which made it an offence to park a motor vehicle with one or more wheels on the pavement. He said that the cycle’s wheel did not rest on the pavement. He now claimed damages for unlawful interference with his goods, the cycle having been impounded.
Held: His appeal failed. The expression ‘parked with one or more wheels on [the pavement]’ must be construed as a whole and it is not only permissible but necessary to have regard to the mischief to which this particular provision is directed in order to determine its meaning. Here the stand was on the pavement, and so was the cycle.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 823, Times 20-Aug-2007, [2008] 1 All ER 1259

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.258479

LSG (Europe) Ltd v Payen: CA 1 Mar 2013

The defendant sought leave to appeal against judgment given against it after a staff member had been involved in a road traffic accident. It had sought to recover the damages arising from his absence from work.

Judges:

Kitchin LJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472894

Clarke v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 7 Feb 2013

The defendant appealed against his speeding conviction, seeking to challenge the accuracy of the police officer’s speed measuring device.
Held: The appeal failed. There was not the need to certify the device in the way suggested by the appellant.

Judges:

Goldring LJ, Fulford J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 366 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedNicholas v Penny QBD 1950
A police officer’s assessment of a defendant’s speed could be corroborated by evidence as to the reading of a speedometer, even if the latter device had not been checked for the accuracy of its reading, unless there were particular reasons for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472811

Gaynor v Allen: 1959

McNair J considered that when looking at the driving of a police officer, the standard remained that of the experienced skilled and careful driver. McNair considered a submission: ‘that if the motor-cyclist had been a civilian he would undoubtedly have been guilty of some negligence in driving at 60mph, though not necessarily entirely to blame for the accident. To show that a police officer was driving at that speed on a restricted road does not prima facie show negligence’
Held: McNair J said: ‘The driver of this police motor-cycle on this occasion must be judged, as regards civil liability, in exactly the same way as any other driver of a motor-cycle in similar circumstances. He, like any other driver, owed a duty to the public to drive with due care and attention and without exposing the members of the public to unnecessary danger.’

Judges:

McNair J

Citations:

[1959] 2 QB 403

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

OutdatedKeyse v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis, Scutts CA 18-May-2001
The court considered liability where a police car on emergency duty hit Mr Scutts causing very serious injuries. The officer appealed against a finding of liability saying that the judge had declared irrelevant the fact he was on an emergency . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Police, Negligence

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.375099

Evans v TNT Logistics Ltd: 2007

(Pontypridd County Court) The court considered the treatment of rejection of the offer of a car to the claimant for use whilst his own car was being repaired after an accident.
Held: Although the offer of the defendant’s insurers could be taken into account, it could (if unreasonably refused) only go to reduce the claim for loss of use to the cost that would have been incurred by the defendants’ insurers if the offer had been accepted. If, therefore, the claimant incurred a cost of andpound;100.00 per day for use of a replacement car, but the defendants’ insurers would only have had to pay andpound;60.00 per day, it would only be the latter cost that would be recoverable.

Judges:

HHJ Wyn Rees

Citations:

[2007] Lloyd’s IR 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedCopley v Lawn; Maden v Haller CA 17-Jun-2009
The parties had been involved in a road accident. The insurer for the liable party offered a car for use whilst the claimant’s car was being repaired. The claimants had rejected that offer, and now appealed against a refusal to award them the cost . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.375997

Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London: Admn 17 Jan 2013

Thames appealed against a conviction for having infringed the 2007 Regulations.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 187 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Traffic Management Act 2004, Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities, Road Traffic

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470836

Maitland, Regina (on the Application of) v Parking Appeals Service and Another: Admn 12 Jun 2006

The claimant sought permission to challenge a decision of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service not to review a decision of the Parking Adjudicator. He said that the relevant signage was unclear.
Held: The appeal raised no points of law and was dismissed.

Judges:

Dobbs J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2171 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.244686

Director of Public Prosecutions v Grundy: Admn 3 May 2006

The prosecution appealed by way of case stated from the acquittal of the defendant for failing to provide a specimen of breath. She had been distressed on being arrested, and the magistrates concluded that her distress had been the cause of her failing to provide the specimen at the police station. They certified a question as to whether it was open to do so without medical evidence.
Held: ‘it is perfectly clear from the case stated that the magistrates were simply not in a position to come to the conclusion that there was any evidence of a causative link between the distress from which they found the defendant to be suffering and her failure to provide a specimen. Since the evidence lacked that essential ingredient, as it seems to me there was insufficient evidence of the defence of reasonable excuse to make it necessary for the Crown to call any evidence to negative it. Stated shortly, the evidence in the case did not justify the conclusion that the defence of reasonable excuse had been raised and that in those circumstances it was not incumbent upon the Crown to call any evidence to disprove it. ‘

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1157 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Lennard CACD 1973
The defendant faced with an allegation of failng to provide a specimen of breath, argued that the consumption of alcohol since he had been driving could amount to a reasonable excuse.
Held: The court considered what would amount to a . .
CitedSmith (Nicholas) v Director of Public Prosecutions 1989
Medical evidence is not always required for a driver to support a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a specimen of breath. Stocker LJ: ‘It would seem to me that in the vast majority of cases at least it will be necessary to have some medical . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Crofton 1994
The court identified three elements to be taken into account to see whether a defendant’s failure to provide a specimen of breath when required to do was reasonable: ‘(i) the need for evidence of physical or mental incapacity to provide the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Brodzky 1997
The court was asked as to what would amount to a reasonable excuse for a driver failing to provide a specimen of breath when so requested: ‘The first point to make is that, although the first question has been put in the form of whether the justices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.242295

Ayres v Odedra: QBD 18 Jan 2013

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 claimant and his friends were drunk and had pulled down there trousers to insilt him, and had banged on his car. He said that he had tried to escape, but had driven over the claimant.
Held: ‘I do not consider that the claimant can be absolved of all responsibility. He deliberately placed himself in the road in front of the defendant’s car and remained there at a time when he should have known that the traffic lights were likely to change and the defendant would want to move forward. His drunken state and dropped trousers hampered his ability to move freely and at a normal speed out of the path of the defendant’s car. I am satisfied that it was the fact that the claimant was not moving at a normal speed that led the defendant to misjudge the claimant’s position and mistakenly to believe that he could get past the claimant without striking him. In the circumstances, I consider that it is just and equitable to apportion liability 80% to the defendant and 20% to the claimant. ‘

Judges:

Swift DBE J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 40 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)

Citing:

CitedNorth v TNt Express (UK) Ltd CA 25-May-2001
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 . .
CitedEagle v Chambers CA 24-Jul-2003
The claimant was severely injured when run down by the defendant driving his car. She was in Blackpool, and drunk and wandering in the highway. The defendant was himself at or near the drink driving limit. She appealed against a finding that she was . .
CitedRehill v Rider Holdings Ltd CA 16-May-2012
The claimant had been injured, being hit by the defendant’s bus. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470370

Woolfe v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 23 Jun 2006

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: ‘although at first sight Zafar may appear harsh, this has to be seen in context. Breath specimens do not provide a precise calculation of how much alcohol a person has consumed. Nor would several people, each having consumed the same amount of alcohol, all produce the same analytical result. There are numerous variables, including age, size, gender, metabolic rate and so on. Parliament has nevertheless prescribed a universal pragmatic test, falling well short of a total prohibition on driving with alcohol in the body. It has done so in the knowledge that different people will be able to consume the same quantities of alcohol with different physical and legal effects. There can be no principled objection to that. Moreover, a defendant who produces a positive specimen as analysed by the intoximeter has chosen to drive after consuming alcohol and will already have provided a positive roadside specimen of breath. At least twenty minutes will have elapsed between the last consumption of alcohol and the provision of the roadside test. Prosecution will only follow if the intoximeter yields two readings above the 35mcg limit (in practice, above 39mcg for a decision to prosecute) and, where the readings do not exceed 50 mcg, there is a statutory right to require an alternative specimen of blood or urine. For regurgitation or reflux to prejudice a defendant, it must have occurred twice (once before each specimen) and with substantially similar results. In addition, the present prescribed procedure requires the suspect to be asked twice (once before and once after the evidential breath test procedure) whether he has brought up anything from his stomach. The scope for real injustice is extremely slight and, where it arises, there remains the further possibility of mitigating the penalty. ‘ The defendant also appealed refusal to consider the circumstances to amount to sepcial reason for non-disqualification. The magistrates had ignored the facts as a defence, and had also disregarded the condition as a special reason. This was incorrect, and the case was remitted to te hmagistrates for resentencing.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kay Mr Justice Mitting

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1497 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedZafar v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-Nov-2004
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.
CitedO’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-Feb-2005
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 . .
CitedRegina v Wickens 1958
The court set out the requirements to be met by a defendant on an argument that there existed special reasons for him not to be disqualified: (1) a special reason must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance; (2) it must not amount in law to a . .
CitedRegina v David Newton 1974
The Lord Chief Justice was unable to accept that someone with 127 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, a little over half the legal limit, did not feel any effect. The process of considering whether special reasons might avoid a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.242701

Oladimeji v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 11 May 2006

The defendant appealed his conviction for failing to provide a specimen of breath without reasonable excuse. The magistrates rejected the defendant’s statement that he had had difficulty providing the breath specimen at the roadside, that he faced similar difficulty in the station, and that he had asthma and was under treatment with anti-biotics.
Held: The court criticised the case as stated in failing to separate the evidence from the findings. However the magistrates had evidence on which to base their conclusions as to the defendant’s condition. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Keene LJ, Jack J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1199 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6), Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 64.6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.242209

Caple v Sewell and others: CA 9 Nov 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1848, [2002] Lloyds IR Rep 626

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedSeddon v Binions CA 1978
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 by:

CitedKeeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s CA 10-Nov-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.201475

Wills v Entwistle and Spruce: CA 12 Nov 1997

The claimant was a passenger in a car driven by the first defendant. He was injured when the driver turned right at traffic lights, in front of a van approaching. The traffic lights were at green for both vehicles. The question was as to the possible liability of the driver of the van. The judge had found that the first defendant was unlikely to have indicated to turn right, but that the van had accelerated. Had the driver been paying proper attention he could have avoided the accident, and the van driver had been found to be 20% responsible.
Held: There had been no evidence before the judge to found his assessment that thevan had not already entered the junction by the time the first defendant turned across his path. There was therefore no basis for finding contributory negligence on the van driver’s part, and the van driver’s appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Roch, Thorpe, Buxton LJJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2701

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143100

Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance: CA 8 Oct 1997

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.
Held: ‘In my judgment, the general approach of the judge below was entirely correct. He rightly identified the duty upon the defendants’ driver crossing this junction against the red light, as a high or heavy one, but equally rightly he recognised a duty of care upon the plaintiff beyond that of merely taking reasonable steps to avoid colliding with any vehicle crossing on red which he happened to see or otherwise be aware of. Rejecting, as I do, the application here of what is suggested to be the absolute rule in favour of traffic crossing a junction on green established in Joseph Eva Ltd v Reeves, it follows that, in my judgment, the appellant’s argument that there was no scope here for any finding of contributory negligence fails.’ The court emphasised that the nature of the duty owed by drivers crossing on green, in circumstances where emergency vehicles are crossing on red, is illuminated by regulation 33(2) of the 1994 Regulations. Simon Brown LJ also referred to rule 76 of the Highway Code providing: ‘Look and listen for ambulances . . or other emergency vehicles with flashing blue lights or sirens. Make room for them to pass (if necessary by moving to the side of the road and stopping) but do not endanger other road users.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Rober Walker LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2441, [1998] PIQR 44

Statutes:

Traffic Signs And General Directions Order 1994 (1994 No 1519)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJoseph Eva Ltd v Reeves CA 1938
An accident occurred when a police vehicle went through traffic lights at green, but on the wrong side of the road.
Held: A driver crossing through traffic lights at green owes no duty to traffic entering the crossing in disobedience to the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Harris QBD 16-Mar-1994
The defence of necessity will be available only in exceptional circumstances even for police drivers driving in pursuit of a suspect. The care due from the driver of an emergency vehicle crossing a junction against red lights is specifically . .
CitedDavis v Hassan 1967
All cases calling for attribution of liaibility where an emergency vehicle is in collision with another vehicle fall to be decided on their own facts. . .

Cited by:

CitedPurdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Service CA 9-Oct-2002
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 . .
CitedCraggy v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police CA 6-Oct-2009
The claimant was driving his fire engine on an emergency call. The defendant’s constable was similarly engaged. It was in the early hours, and they each went through the traffic junction. They crashed and the judge held both drivers negligent to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142839

Silverton v Goodall and Motor Insurance Bureau: CA 26 Mar 1997

Sir Ralph Gibson explained the historical development of the Motor Insurers Bureau describing it as ‘a novel piece of extra statutory machinery’.

Judges:

Sir Ralph Gibson

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1363, [1997] PIQR 451

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHorton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141759

Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Fitzgerald and Wilkinson and Others: CA 24 Aug 2012

The court was asked whether, if the insured owner of a vehicle permits another, uninsured, to drive the car, carrying the owner, and through his negligence causes and accident in which the owner is injured, the insurer is bound to meet the owner’s claim by virtue of the 1988 Act.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Etherton, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1166

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463723

John Kimball Stewart v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2 Jun 2003

The defendant gave two specimens of breath, but they differed so markedly that the officer considered them unreliable. He offered the defendant the choice of a further two attempts or to give a specimen of blood or urine. He was convicted on the second set of breath tests. He appealed, saying he should not have been required to give such further specimens.
Held: The first tests were nugatory, and accordingly the second set were arguably the first. The Act required the officer to offer the choice for a blood test. He had done that, and had not required the second set of breath tests. The conviction stood.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Goldring The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1323 (Admin), Times 07-Jul-2003, [2003] RTR 35

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 4 5 7(1)(a) 11(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJubb v Director of Public Prosecutions 2002
The arrested driver was given a warning under section 7(7) before two specimens of breath were obtained. The officer thought the specimens unreliable being of uneven volume. The officer then gave the appellant the chance to repeat the breath . .

Cited by:

CitedEdmond v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The readings on the Intoximeter were too wide apart and the officer requested a blood specimen. He complained that he had not been given a fresh warning before this request.
CitedHussain v the Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 19-Mar-2008
Appeal by case stated – conviction for failing to provide specimen of breath. Machine at one station had failed on two occasions – defendant taken to second station and re-tested. Whether third test request lawful.
Held: In completing the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.183712