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.
Held: For insurance purposes, the father could validly permit the driving when under a mistake. A permission which would arise only subject to and upon the fulfillment of a condition was not a permission until that condition was fulfilled, but a permission given did not cease to be one only such for mistake. There was no relevance in different kinds of mistake.
Pill LJ said: ‘permission does not cease to be permission for the purposes of the statute because, in good faith, the person giving it believes that the person to whom it is given is covered by the policy when in fact the person is not.’
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Rix
[2004] EWCA Civ 766, Times 06-Aug-2004, [2004] 3 All ER 741, [2004] 1 WLR 2350
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 151
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Newbury v Davis QBD 1974
newbury_davisQBD1974
The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner’s absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance.
Held: The appeal against conviction was . .
Cited – Ferrymasters Ltd v Adams 1980
Employers were alleged to have caused or permitted an employee to drive a vehicle on the road while not holding a driving licence authorising him to do so. When the employee had entered the employment, the employers had ensured that he held a valid . .
Cited – Baugh v Crago QBD 1975
The defendant believed that a driver was the holder of a driving licence and permitted him to use the vehicle, when the driver was not in fact such a holder. The prosecutor appealed his acquittal.
Held: Considering Newbury v Davis. The . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Fisher QBD 1992
F was asked to lend L a car. F knew L was disqualified, but agreed provided L found an insured driver with a full valid driving licence. F did not know who L would ask or that he in fact asked R to drive; R was employed as delivery driver and the . .
Cited – Monk v Warbey CA 1935
The court took a strict view of a vehicle owner’s potential liability to injured third parties.
Held: A person who suffered injury by reason of a breach of s35 could maintain an action in damages for that breach: ‘The Road Traffic Act, 1930, . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson and Others CA 19-May-2010
The various insured defendants had been driven in the insured vehicles by a non-insured driver. Suffering injury at the negligence of the driver, they recovered variously damages. Their insurance companies sought recovery of the sums paid from their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Road Traffic, Personal Injury
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.198301