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:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina 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:
Cited – McMminn 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
