Dawood v Parking & Traffic Appeals Service and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Sedley |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 1411 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 27 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2009/1313 |
[2009] EWCA Civ 1411
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(His Honour Judge Oliver-Jones QC)
Before: Lord Justice Sedley
Case No: C1/2009/1313
Mr Simon Butler (instructed by BSG Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
Lord Justice Sedley:
This is a renewed application made with his customary skill by Mr Simon Butler for permission to appeal against a decision of the Administrative Court. The decision was given by HHJ Oliver-Jones QC on an application for permission to seek judicial review of the adverse decision of a parking adjudicator.
The adjudicator had refused to quash a penalty charge notice issued to the applicant, Dr Dawood, in circumstances which would certainly raise eyebrows. The circumstances were that Dr Dawood had parked his motor scooter on a section of pavement in Cleveland Street London W1 of which he was the owner. One might have thought that nobody could commit a criminal offence by parking a motor scooter on his own land. But the adjudicator took the law to be otherwise and HHJ Oliver-Jones held that the contrary was not arguable. Moreover on application to this court Sir Richard Buxton took exactly the same view. Hence the renewal today.
The reason why the parking fine was upheld was that the restriction of parking which there undoubtedly is in Cleveland Street governs “any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access” by virtue of section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The situation on the adjudicator's finding was therefore simply this: that, albeit Dr Dawood owned the subsoil, the surface was subject to access by the public as users of Cleveland Street. That being so, the offence was made out.
Mr Butler submits that it is a false reading of the legislation. He submits not merely that the word “or” in the formula which I have read is disjunctive but that it represents a two-stage inquiry, of which one only reaches the second stage if there is a negative answer to the first; in other words, if Cleveland Street is a highway, the inquiry ends there and it matters not whether it is another road to which the public has access. That in itself, it seems to me, does not get him out of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of Preeti Pereira) v Environment and Traffic Adjudicators
...owner. His claim for judicial review of the decision of the parking adjudicator failed. In a ruling refusing permission to appeal at [2009] EWCA Civ 1411, Sedley LJ said this: “One might have thought that nobody could commit a criminal offence by parking a motor scooter on his own land”. I......
-
The Queen (on the Application of Preeti Pereira) v Environment and Traffic Adjudicators
...owner. His claim for judicial review of the decision of the parking adjudicator failed. In a ruling refusing permission to appeal at [2009] EWCA Civ 1411, Sedley LJ said this: “One might have thought that nobody could commit a criminal offence by parking a motor scooter on his own land”. I......