[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Page v Gateshead Council [2012] EWHC 1654 (Admin) (13 February 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1654.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 1654 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Leeds Combined Court 1 Oxford Row Leeds West Yorkshire LS1 3BG
		13th February 2012

Mr Justice Supperstone:

1. There is before me an appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Gateshead Magistrates whereby they dismissed an information that on 2^nd October 2010 the respondent, Frederick Roy Page, used a motor vehicle registration number NK 04 BTV, on a road, namely Bridge Street, Blaydon, without in force in relation to the use of the vehicle, such a policy of insurance or such of security in respect of third party risks, as complies with Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
2. Before the justices at the hearing of this matter was another matter, namely that on the same day the respondent was plying for hire with the same motor vehicle within the borough of Gateshead without having obtained a licence from the appropriate local authority, contrary to section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
3. Having heard the evidence, the justices were satisfied that the respondent had plied for trade when he was not authorised to do so in the Gateshead area. Accordingly he was convicted of this offence. There is no appeal to this court by way of case stated against that conviction.
4. In relation to the allegation of the use of a motor vehicle without insurance, the justices dismissed this information. The justices say in the statement of case that the only document that was produced in evidence was a copy of the certificate of insurance, issued by Tradex Insurance Company Ltd, for the period 4^th July 2010 to 4^th July 2011, in respect of the vehicle. The justices did not see the insurance policy itself. They heard evidence from Jackie Stead, the ex-divisional director of Tradex Insurance Company Ltd, and in the case stated the justices record the evidence that she gave.
5. Today Mr Page appears before me in person and has, he says, in his possession a copy of the policy of insurance that he would wish me to look at when hearing this appeal. I have explained to him that on an appeal by way of case stated that a court cannot consider new evidence. Miss Smith, who appears for the appellant, has at my invitation spoken to Mr Page and looked at the policy that he has in his possession. She has informed me on instructions that a policy of insurance was in the possession of Miss Stead at the hearing before the justices, but that the justices refused to look at the policy or to have it adduced in evidence. Mr Page's recollection appears to be slightly different in that he does not recall that a policy of insurance was available before the justices, but in any event both Mr Page and Miss Smith are in agreement that the policy of insurance was not adduced in evidence before the justices.
6. Miss Smith has helpfully submitted that in these circumstances that present themselves before the court today it would be in the interests of justice that this matter be remitted to the justices and indeed to the same bench of justices for them to reconsider afresh the information relating to the absence of insurance cover. I am in agreement with that suggestion, as is Mr Page.
7. In the circumstances I direct that the issue of insurance and the information before the magistrates with regard to the absence of insurance be remitted to the same bench of magistrates for them to consider the matter afresh. No doubt when they do so Mr Page will be present. He will, together with those appearing for the Council, wish the magistrates to look at and consider the policy of insurance.
8. The direction that I have given disposes of the case stated that is presently before the court.
9. Mr Page, I am going to treat what you have said as an application for costs by you. I am going to refuse that application. It seems to me in the circumstances that the order should be no order as to costs. You are being given as it were a second bite of the cherry.

Order: 1. The issue of insurance and the information before the magistrates in respect of the absence of insurance be remitted back to the same bench of magistrates to reconsider the matter afresh.

2. This order disposes of the case stated.

3. No order for costs.