Power v Provincial Insurance: CA 18 Feb 1997

The insured had failed to disclose an earlier drink driving conviction on applying for insurance over five years later. The insurers refused cover on an accident. The plaintiff said that the conviction was spent under the 1974 Act. The endorsement remained ‘effective’ on his licence for 11 years should he be convicted again. The court asked whether an endorsement was part of the penalty and rehabilitated.
Held: The endorsement was a penalty within the meaning of the section and should have been disclosed.
Staughton LJ, Pill LJ, Mummery LJ
[1997] EWCA Civ 1037
Road Traffic Act 1972, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
England and Wales
CitedRiver Wear Commissioners v Adamson HL 1877
It was not necessary for there to be an ambiguity in a statutory provision for a court to be allowed to look at the surrounding circumstances.
As to the Golden Rule of interpretation: ‘It is to be borne in mind that the office of the judge is . .
CitedBell v Ingham QBD 1968
The plaintiff was charged with an attempting to commit an offence of taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. The Justices fined him andpound;10 and ordered that the particulars of the conviction should be endorsed . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 April 2021; Ref: scu.141433