F CASE TWO
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Attempt to blame driver fails at appeal
A SCRAP metal operator failed to convince a Crown Court that his conviction for a defective tyre should be blamed on his driver.
Dagenham-based Domas Zeckis, trading as Zevuckis Reovals, was ordered to pay £600 towards VOSA's costs when Guildford Crown Court dismissed his appeal against the c nviction.
Guildford Magistrates had ed Zevuckis £150, ordered m to pay f.500 prosecution costs, and endorsed his driving licence with three penalty points.
The Crown Court was told Zevuckis ran a business in which he collected old washing machines. A Mr Ticlikis, who was driving the vehicle on the date of the offence, collected them and they shared the profits, as they were partners.
The law was that one partner could not be responsible for the actions of another in a "using offence" as there was no employeremployee relationship.
Zevuckis said that his partner should have changed the tyre, which had an exposed cord, since he had left a new tyre on the truck.
For VOSA, Jacqueline Devonish said they did not accept that the men were partners as no accounts had been produced or any partnership agreement. There was no joint maintenance or ownership of the vehicle. Zevuekis had control over the vehicle and the work undertaken by Tidikis.
She added that in the cases of Ballet Silberman Ltd v Cheshire County Council 1993 and London Borough of Richmond 2001 the High Court had held that the relationship should be scrutinised, and that 'use' was intended to cover a person whose vehicle was being used for his purpose and on his behalf, and under his instruction and control. In Muscat v Cable & Wireless the Court of Appeal found that even an agency arrangement was caught by the definition.
Devonish said that the vehicle must have been driven in its condition for some time. The vehicle was registered to Zevuckis and it was his responsibility to ensure it was roadworthy at all times.