Burns v Currell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1963 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
31 cases
-
Charli Lewington (Claimant v The Motor Insurance Bureau
...that "one of the uses was on roads" and the answer should have been "yes", applying the case law and in particular the leading case of Burns v Currell [1963] 2 All ER 297 and Lord Parker CJ's classic interpretation of the words now in section 185, a fortiori (submits the Appellant) once on......
-
Phillip Coates v Crown Prosecution Service
...the appellant. 4 The District Judge recorded in his judgment that he had been referred to a number of authorities: Burns v Currell [1963] 2 QB 433; Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v F (A Juvenile) [1987] RTR 378; Director of Public Prosecutions v Saddington [2000] EWHC Adm......
-
An application for a writ of HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM R Lee v DONCASTER & South HUMBER Healthcare NHS
...capable of being propelled" as meaning that the vehicle is "reasonably capable of being propelled" by the pedals. (See Burns v Currell (1963) 2 QB 433 and Chief Constable of the North Yorkshire Police v Saddington, 26 October 2000 (Unreported) CO/2184/2000). The critical finding of fact in ......
-
DPP v King
...21).” 9 The leading judgment was given by Pill LJ, with whom Bell J agreed. In the course of his judgment, Pill LJ said this: “12. In Burns v Currell [1963] 2 All ER 297 the Divisional Court had to consider whether a mechanically propelled vehicle known as a Go-Kart was a motor vehicle with......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Divisional Court
...the alterations by removal of parts had changed the original status of the machine before he had acquired it. Thus, in Burns v. Currell [1963] 2 Q.B. 433, the Divisional Court held that where certain vital parts had been removed from a go-kart, the justices were not entitled to hold that it......
-
Divisional Court
...did not require anHGVlicence, the court statedits opinion that the justices ought to have convicted on that charge also.In Burns v Carrell[1963]2 QB 433, where the question was whether ago-kart was 'intended or adapted' for use on a road, the court applied thetest of whether a reasonable pe......
-
RIG, AND WHETHER IT QUALIFIES AS A MOTOR VEHICLE
...a reasonable man looking at it, would say that one of its uses, would be a road use. As a matter of fact, the case of Burns v. Currell (1963) 2 Q.B. 433; (1963) 2 All E.R. 297 also cited at page 921 of the Records and was relied on by the Court below, and in which a "Go-Kart", was held not ......