AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Van as Private Car: Case Fails

3rd April 1936, Page 45
3rd April 1936
Page 45
Page 45, 3rd April 1936 — Van as Private Car: Case Fails
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Ii a King's Bench Divisional Court composed of Lord Hewart and Justices du Parcq and Goddard, last week, the question was debated whether a van which carried a load consisting of permanent fixtures can claim to be a private car and travel at over 30 m.p.h. in a derestrictecl area.

The appeal was against a decision of FeItha.m (Middlesex) magistrates, who had fined Mr. W. P. Burmingham, driver of a Van belonging to a film company, 20s, for driving the vehicle at 40 m.p.h.

Mr. Laurence Vine, for the appellant, explained that the vehicle had the chassis of a private car, with a van body. In it was a film-recording apparatus with batteries which were permanent fixtures. If the van, which was taxed as a private car, came within the category of that class of car,

no offence had been committed. It Was a class of vehicle, nbout which the legislature had forgotten and he

tended thatthat it waS in the category of a private car and was not, therefore, subject to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit:

Lord Hewart said that the vehicle was a goods van—a vehicle constructed or adapted for the conveyance of goods or a burden of any description. It was true that the Act made reference to certain vehicles, when dealing with the quantum of load; which carried permanent apparatus, and stipulated fiat the equipment. had to be considered on the question of load, so far as 'weight was concerned; but it did not follow that that was not a burden, which the apparatus, in this case, manifestly was. The case seemed to be so clear that it was transparent and the appeal would be dismissed.


comments powered by Disqus