1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
Dent's Fined £35 for Operating Unlicensed Vehicle
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE questionof whether or not a vehicle, illegally used, is covered by insurance, was successfully argued by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw on behalf of Dent's Transport (Spennymoor), Ltd., of Tudhoe Colliery, Co. Durham, when they appeared before the Darlington magistrates on Tuesday to answer three charges, brought by the Northern Area Licensing Authority, of operating an unlicensed vehicle. Three additional charges of using an uninsured vehicle were also preferred.
Before he entered pleas, Mr. Wardlaw submitted that the matters in the charges were res judicata (the issues had already been decided) and the court was not competent to entertain the offences.
They had been dealt with and taken into account by the Licensing Authority, Mr. I. A. T. Hanlon, during the revocation inquiry held earlier in the year, when the company's 15-vehicle A licence was revoked. The matter was then taken before the Transport Tribunal on appeal, and the licence was restored to them.
Breach of Justice It would be a breach of British justice if persons were called upon to answer the same charges twice.
After a submission by Mr. B. G. Montgomery, prosecuting, who said that Mr. Hanlon had stated in his decision that he ivas not concerned with punishment, the magistrates ruled that they had iurisdiction to hear the case.
Unchallenged evidence was given by an official of the Northern Traffic Area and of Skernc Works, Ltd., of Darlington, that vehicle 755 BUP had been used on three occasions in 1960 to deliver goods when it was not specified in a licence.
Mr. Wardlaw finally submitted that in view of the evidence it was inevitable that the magistrates must find against his clients -in respect of the charges of operating an unlicensed vehicle.
"Wide Proposition" However, evidence had been given that a current insurance policy was in being, which covered, amongst other things, "the use of the vehicle in connection with the holder's own business." The prosecution said that a policy could not cover the performance of an Unlawful act. This was a "wide proposition ',to put forward. It meant that autfone exceeding the speed limit was not.covered by insurance. '
The "Law Journal" had recently indicated that whilst there was no authority on this point, an insurance policy could not be invalidated by an illegal act unless it contained an expressed stipulation to that effect.
The magistrates found Dent's guilty of operating a vehicle without a carrier's licence and fined them £35 with costs, but dismissed the charges of using an uninsured vehicle.
n12