Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Road Traffic - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 38 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 2000 [2001] EWCA Crim 780; [2001] 2 Cr App R 2
2001
CACD
Lord Woolf CJ
Crime, Road Traffic
Lord Woolf CJ reaffirmed that the test for dangerous driving was an objective one: "Section 2A sets out a wholly objective test. The concept of what is obvious to a careful driver places the question of what constitutes dangerous driving within the province of the jury. It is the jury who should set the standard as to what is or what is not dangerous driving."
1 Citers


 
Evans v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Motor Insurers' Bureau [2001] EWCA Civ 32; [2001] EWCA Civ 1211
18 Jan 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, European, Insurance

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Criminal Proceedings Against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd and Others; ECJ 18-Jan-2001 - Times, 20 February 2001; [2001] EUECJ C-297/99; C-297/99
 
Andrea Merzario Ltd v Internationale Spedition Leitner Gesellschaft Gmbh Times, 27 February 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001
23 Jan 2001
CA

International, Road Traffic
When assessing just when a case is pending for the purposes of deciding priority as between jurisdictions competing to hear a case, the determining factor is the date of service, not the date of issue. Proceedings were issued in Vienna then in England, but the English papers were served first. Accordingly they were already pending in England and jurisdiction followed accordingly.
Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31 - Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965


 
 Churchill Insurance v Charlton; CA 2-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 21 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 112; [2001] EWCA Civ 1230; [2002] QB 578; [2001] RTR 33; [2001] Lloyd's Rep IR 387; [2001] 3 WLR 1435; [2001] PIQR P23; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 769
 
Collier v Crapper [2001] EWCA Civ 232
9 Feb 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury
The court rejected an application for leave to appeal. The defendant had turned right out of a slow moving land of traffic into the path of the plaintiff who was riding a motor cycle along the off-side of the queue of vehicles. Held. It could not be said that the judge's findings were inappropriate.
[ Bailii ]
 
Tracy Foster Nee Bellington v John Maguire and Irwell Construction Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 273
9 Feb 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury, Negligence
Cyclist riding into rear of vehicle parked across cycle lane.
[ Bailii ]
 
Wake v Page and Another Times, 09 February 2001; [2001] RTR 291
9 Feb 2001
CA
Kennedy LJ
Insurance, Estoppel, Litigation Practice, Road Traffic
Insurers were quite entitled to insist upon service of the statutory seven day notice of an intention to sue. In the absence of a notice very were not liable even though they were fully aware of the possibility of action. However regrettable it was there was no representation from the Insurers that they would waive their right for formal notice, and no equitable estoppel arose. A prudent solicitor would be well advised to ensure that the insurance company received written notice within seven days after the commencement of proceedings.
1 Citers


 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lonsdale Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 16 February 2001
16 Feb 2001
QBD

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice
Where a motorist told an officer at the roadside that he suffered from bronchitis, and could not provide a specimen of breath, and he wanted to rely upon the same reason at the police station, he could not claim that the officer in the station should know of his objection, but should make it clear again. It was not open to him to say nothing at all, to make no attempt to provide a specimen, and then later to seek to assert a reasonable excuse for not providing a specimen of breath. There was no need to look at the two sections concurrently. The later subsection had been irrelevant in this matter.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(1)(a), 7(3)(a), 7(6)

 
Regina v Saunders; Regina v Hockings; Regina v Williams Times, 20 February 2001
20 Feb 2001
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
Where an employee commits an offence under the tachograph regulations by making false entries, such an offence should not be taken less serious than the same offence committed by an employer. Employees were likely also to be driven by financial motives, and the danger was the danger faced by other road users faced by tired drivers. Sentences of imprisonment were not inappropriate for such offences even by first time offender employees.
Transport Act 1968 99(5)

 
Hayward v Norwich Union Insurance Times, 08 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 243; [2001] Lloyd's Rep IR 410
22 Feb 2001
CA
Peter Gibson LJ
Insurance, Consumer, Road Traffic
An insurance policy which exempted the company from liability when a car was stolen was phrased to apply 'while the keys had been left in the car' The claimant had been subject to a robbery whilst in the car, and been obliged to get out. The car was stolen. The court at first instance had construed the clause as including a requirement that the car be unattended. On appeal it was held that there was no possibility of importing such a condition. The clause was clear and had a clear and sensible purpose. . . . insurance policies are contracts to which the general rules of construction of contracts apply and that the starting point is that words are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning as understood from the background against which the words were used or the meaning which the document would convey to the reasonable man."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ribble Motor Services Ltd v Traffic Commission For The North Western Travel Area Times, 08 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 267
23 Feb 2001
CA

Transport, Licensing, Road Traffic
When looking at whether the bus operator had delivered the bus timetable standards as required, the Commission need not consider every occasion of excuse, but could consider that the general margin of 12 minutes on timetables included everyday occurrences. If no expert evidence was put before it to say otherwise, the Commission could also consider that it was appropriate to look for 95% achievement of the targets.
Transport Act 1985 6
[ Bailii ]

 
 White v White and The Motor Insurers Bureau; HL 1-Mar-2001 - Times, 06 March 2001; Gazette, 12 April 2001; [2001] UKHL 9; [2001] 2 All ER 43; [2001] 1 WLR 481; [2001] 1 LLR 679; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 1105; [2001] PIQR P20; [2001] 2 CMLR 1; [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 679; [2001] RTR 25; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 493
 
Interlink Express Parcels Ltd v Night Trunkers Ltd and Another Times, 22 March 2001; Gazette, 17 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 360
14 Mar 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Transport, Employment
Where the issue was whether a temporary worker was to be deemed to be an employee (in this case for licensing purposes) of the main contractor, the proper test was the degree of control exercised by the deemed employer. The purpose of the section was to ensure that responsibility for the operation of a vehicle was known. This was a context of tort, rather than of contract.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Netherlands C-83/00; [2001] EUECJ C-83/00
15 Mar 2001
ECJ

European, Road Traffic
ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 97/24/EC - Components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles.
Directive 97/24/EC
[ Bailii ]
 
Yorkshire Traction Co Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate Times, 15 March 2001
15 Mar 2001
QBD

Road Traffic
The regulations required drivers to keep tachograph records only for one week, and permitted them to retain them longer. It was not possible therefore to conclude that the employer had failed to institute an adequate system of supervision to ensure that drivers were not speeding by checking records only every three weeks.
Road Traffic (Drivers' Hours and Hours of Work) Act 1976 2 (1)(c) - Criminal Justice Act 1981 38 46 - Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986 no 1457


 
 Telfner v Austria; ECHR 20-Mar-2001 - [2001] ECHR 225; 33501/96; [2001] ECHR 228
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson Times, 21 March 2001; Gazette, 03 May 2001
21 Mar 2001
QBD

Road Traffic, Human Rights
The use of an admission obtained under compulsion that a driver was the driver, at the time when a car was being driven so as to commit an offence, was not an infringement of the defendant's human rights, and there was no requirement of a notice that the admission obtained might be used in evidence.
Road Traffic Act 1988 172(2)(b)

 
Regina on the Application of Hilary Wainwright v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 310
11 Apr 2001
Admn

Road Traffic
Appeal against installation of toucan crossing.
[ Bailii ]
 
Lisa Michelle Cooper v Aubrey Clifford Hatton [2001] EWCA Civ 623
3 May 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
A M Richardson t/a D J Travel Consultants v Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Unreported, 11 May 2001; Appeal 65/2000
11 May 2001
TT

Road Traffic, Licensing
The burden of proof for the purpose of a section 27 revocation issue is on the licence holder to prove its continuing good repute.
1 Citers



 
 Keyse v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis, Scutts; CA 18-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 715
 
North v TNt Express (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 853
25 May 2001
CA
Schiemann, Tucker, Hale LJJ
Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic
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 windscreen wipers, rather than by an adjacent handle. The defendant twice asked the claimant to move and, when the claimant did not, the defendant drove off very slowly, intending to find a quiet spot away from the claimant's companions where he could persuade the claimant to get off the lorry. After the lorry had travelled about 100 metres, one of the windscreen wipers became detached, the claimant fell off and, although the defendant braked immediately, the lorry struck the claimant, causing serious internal injuries.
The trial judge had found that there had been "no pressing need" for the defendant to take such a potentially dangerous step as to drive off with the claimant standing on the front bumper of the lorry. He concluded that, in doing so, the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care. He found that the defendant was liable to the extent of 25%, the claimant's contributory negligence being assessed at 75%. The defendant appealed. Held: The appeal succeeded. There had been no breach of duty on the part of the defendant.
Hale LJ said: "It is interesting that in this case, when discussing contributory negligence, the judge remarked that it was extraordinary that the claimant did not get off the lorry the moment it started to move, when it was going very slowly indeed, and as indeed one of his own witnesses had also wondered. The judge also commented that the driver, although in breach of duty, was put in a difficult situation and his was an error of judgment.
It seems to me that the judge in this case applied too rigorous a standard of care when asking himself whether what the driver had done was reasonable in all the circumstances. He referred, as I have indicated, to the fact that there was "not such a pressing need." Later on he referred to the fact that "the exigencies of the situation did not . . require" the driver to drive the lorry down the road. That is putting it too high. It seems to me that had the driver indeed done what the claimant said he had done, that is driven in such a violent and erratic way as to indicate that he was trying to dislodge the claimant from the front of the lorry, there could indeed have been a breach of the duty of care because he would have been going well beyond what could be considered a reasonable reaction to the difficult situation in which he was placed. But one has to take all the circumstances of that situation into account when deciding whether what he did do was such a reasonable reaction. These include the fact that he was put into the dilemma by the claimant himself who was behaving in an offensive and thoroughly irresponsible fashion, displaying a complete lack of regard for his own safety, let alone for the difficult position in which he had put the driver and his mate. One also has to take into account the surrounding circumstances. It is was late at night (just after the closing time for this particular establishment), there was a reasonably large group of people on the pavement, some of whom at least were friends of the claimant, some of whom had obviously been drinking, and even if the others were not actually aggressive, the claimant was. The claimant's intention may only have been to hold up the lorry for five minutes but the driver and his mate had no means of knowing that and were put in a very difficult situation. In those circumstances I would not consider it unreasonable to drive off very slowly with a view to stopping at some quieter spot away from the group to persuade the claimant to get off.
Furthermore, the judge could have taken more account of the fact that the claimant only fell off when he was engaged in an even more stupid and dangerous act of pulling at the windscreen wiper on to which he was holding. I would agree with Mr Kilcoyne on behalf of the respondent claimant that that does not necessarily rob the driving of all causative effect, but it does indicate something about the reasonableness of the driver's conduct up until that point.
For my part I would say that there was in the particular circumstances of this case, in the very difficult situation in which the driver found himself, no breach of the duty to take reasonable care. For that reason I would allow the appeal."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Planton v Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 6-Jun-2001 - Gazette, 05 July 2001; Times, 17 August 2001; [2002] RTR 9; [2001] EWHC 450 (Admin)
 
Robbie the Pict v Procurator Fiscal, Dingwall [2001] ScotHC 38
8 Jun 2001
ScHC

Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]

 
 Middlesborough Borough Council v Safeer; Same v Afzal; Same v Asghar; Same v Baxter; Same v Khaliq; Same v Ali; QBD 26-Jun-2001 - Times, 16 August 2001; Gazette, 26 July 2001
 
Regina v McClean and McCready [2001] NIECA 26
28 Jun 2001
CANI

Road Traffic, Damages

[ Bailii ]

 
 Clarke v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police; CA 28-Jun-2001 - Gazette, 26 July 2001
 
Watson v Skuse [2001] EWCA Civ 1158
17 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Gaynor; CANI 14-Sep-2001 - [2001] NIECA 30
 
Ledger v Spurgeon [2001] EWCA Civ 1527
11 Oct 2001
CA
Ward, Potter, May LJJ
Negligence, Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Caple v Sewell and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1848; [2002] Lloyds IR Rep 626
9 Nov 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Insurance

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira Times, 03 December 2001; [2002] RTR 395; CO/3794/2001; CO/3710/2001
16 Nov 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Pill, Mr Justice Cresswell
Road Traffic, Evidence
Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace the presumption in law that the Intoximeter system in general works. The evidence in such cases did not go to the ability of the equipment to measure the levels of alcohol in the deep lungs. Evidence that the machines might misread alcohol held in the mouth was not relevant since each defendant admitted that no such alcohol was present. Evidence should not be put before the Court as to whether the ECIR instrument should not have received the approval of the Secretary of State and/or that approval should have been revoked and/or that it had been modified
Road Traffic Act 1988 5 15(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Williams v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] EWHC Admin 932
16 Nov 2001
Admn
Pill LJ, Cresswell J
Road Traffic
Appeal against conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The defendant argued that the intoximeter was ineffective.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Cantabrica Coach Holdings Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division); HL 22-Nov-2001 - Times, 28 November 2001; Gazette, 24 January 2002; [2001] UKHL 60; [2002] RTR 8; [2001] 1 WLR 2288; [2002] 1 All ER 595; (2002) 166 JPN 550; (2002) 166 JP 423
 
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v London Concrete Ltd [2001] EWHC Admin 1077
13 Dec 2001
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper
Road Traffic, Crime
The respondent company was acquitted after its vehicle, exceeding the maximum weight, was driven on a restricted street in contravention of the regulations. No unrestricted street allowed access to the destination. The delivery was on the company's business, but the driver was self employed. The district judge had held that it was sufficient of the lorry was being used ' for the purposes of the Respondent company’s business', but that the company had discharged the burden of showing it was not itself using the vehicle. The prosecutor appealed. Held: The offence in question is one of strict or absolute liability. This is best not seen as a case of vicarious liability, but rather of a special use of the word 'use' in road traffic law. The test was “Is the owner reasonably capable of giving instructions and exercising control over the driver to ensure compliance with Article 3?” In this case the district judge had applied the wrong test, and the appeal was allowed.
Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1995 Art 3 - Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 8(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Courtney v Murphy [2001] EWCA Civ 2059
14 Dec 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Wainwright) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council Times, 16 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 1090; [2001] EWCA Civ 2062
20 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Wall
Local Government, Road Traffic
A local authority was under a statutory duty to consult before undertaking road improvements. Because of the chaotic mail administration systems, the consultation had been ruled unlawful. The council appealed. Held: The council had in fact failed in its duty to consult, but there was no possibility that its decision would have differed even if the consultation had been effective, and the plan was restored.
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 23
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.