T.N.T. Express (U.K.) Ltd v The London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE McCOWAN |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWHC J0614-3 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 14 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | CO 1537-95 |
[1995] EWHC J0614-3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Before: Lord Justice Mccowan and Mr Justice Waller
CO 1537-95
MR J HARDY (Instructed by Jeremy Fear & Co, Middlesex EN1 1YU) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
MR G ALLIOTT (Instructed by Legal Advisor, Twickenham TW1 3BZ) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
(As Approved)
Wednesday, 14th June 1995
MR JUSTICE WALLERThere are before the Court two appeals by way of case stated. In both the Appellant is T.N.T. Express (UK) Limited, who I shall refer to as T.N.T., and the Respondent is London Borough of Richmond in its capacity as the authority responsible for enforcing the London Borough's transport scheme and weekend lorry control. Both appeals raise identical issues, which are similar if not identical to those raised before this court in the three appeals of Post Office v London Borough of Richmond.
We have a transcript of the revised judgment of Lord Justice Mann in that case, where he dismissed the appeals of the post office. We are asked in these appeals by T.N.T. not to follow that decision on the basis that it was decided per in curiam.
The issues that arise can best be defined in the context of the relevant statutory provisions and orders made thereunder. By section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1974, the then Greater London Council was empowered to make orders regulating the flow of traffic from Greater London.
By section 8(1) of that same Act, it is provided that:
"Any person who acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, an order under section 6 of this Act shall be guilty of an offence."
Pursuant to section 6, the Greater London Council made what is titled the Greater London (Description of Goods Vehicle) Traffic Order 1985 and that order is still in effect and I will refer to it simply as "The Order".
Article 3 of The Order provides:
"Subject to Article 4 hereof, no person shall drive or cause to permit to be driven any goods vehicle exceeding 16.5 tonnes maximum gross weight in any restricted street during the prescribed hours."
The "restricted streets" are all those within the green area as shown on the scheme map. The orange coloured streets on that map are what are termed "excluded roads". The prescribed hours are defined in article 2.
Article 4 provides:
"Nothing in Article 3 of this Order shall apply:-
(a) in relation to any goods vehicle being driven by any person in a restricted street during the prescribed hours in respect of which a permit has been issued by the Council pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 below provided that:-
(i) the permit is displayed….
(iii) any conditions subject to which the permit is issued are complied with; or"
The conditions normally considered for attachment to any permit are at page 71 of bundle A with our papers. The relevant condition is, in fact, condition 5 but it is perhaps worth reciting also condition 4.
Condition 4 states:
"The applicant and the driver of the vehicle shall maximise the use of the M25 or other suitable routes outside the Permit Area as an alternative to using roads in the Permit Area. The applicant and driver of the vehicle shall ensure that the vehicle shall not be driven on restricted roads in the Permit Area during the control period unless either:
(a) [which is not relevant in this case] but,
(b) it is undertaking a necessary journey in the Permit Area and;
(i) the next planned stopping place is in the Permit Area where the vehicle is to be loaded, or repaired or parked….
(ii) the previous planned stopping place was in the Permit Area where the vehicle was loaded or unloaded or repaired or was parked etc….."
Then, Condition 5, as I say is the important condition:
"The applicant and driver of the vehicle shall ensure that, during the controlled period, if it be essential that the vehicle uses roads in the Permit Area, the vehicle minimises the use of restricted roads. To this end, the applicant and driver of the vehicle shall ensure that the vehicle:
(a) does not leave excluded roads until as near as practicable to the planned stopping place in the Permit Area; and
(b) takes the shortest practicable route from a planned stopping place either to the nearest excluded road or to the next planned stopping place if this results in the vehicle being driven a shorter distance in total on restricted roads."
The convictions which are the subject of the appeals by T.N.T., are all founded on an alleged failure to comply with Condition 5(b). In all cases, it is not in issue:
(1) that T.N.T. was causing to be driven, a goods vehicles exceeding 16.5 tonnes in a restricted street during the prescribed hours; and,
(2) that the permit had been issued in respect of each vehicle which was being displayed. The issue in each case was, and is, whether T.N.T. were failing to comply with a condition of the permit, that is Condition 5(b).
On 7th October 1994, the Walton Street Justices found nine informations proved. The facts in relation to those informations related to dates between 14th October 1992 and 20th August 1993, one in Edith Grove and eight in Finborough Road. The Walton Street Magistrates' found T.N.T. guilty of an offence in relation to those dates and those places.
On 14th December 1994, the Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate at Horseferry Road found an information proved, alleging an offence on 14th May 1994 at Lambeth Palace Road.
The following are undisputed facts so far as each alleged offence is concerned. T.N.T. had picked up news print at the News International Plant at Wapping for the purpose of delivering the same to Bristol.
The Wapping Plant was in a planned stopping place. The Wapping Plant could not be reached or departed from solely by the use of excluded roads. Therefore it was "essential" that each vehicle used roads within the Permit Area.
The nearest excluded road was the East India Dock Road leading to the M25. There was nothing physically preventing T.N.T. taking their lorries to that excluded road, or using that excluded road.
T.N.T. were actually taking a route across London which saved them 40 to 45 minutes on the journey time to Bristol. That was an important saving in commercial terms for them. Indeed, before this Court, some details of the advantage to them was given to us.
It has been calculated that if they were not entitled to take that route across London, the result would involve them having to travel some 5,740 further miles, and it has been further calculated that that may involve the use of a further 717 gallons of fuel. A further aspect that was put before us, was the possibility of further accidents occurring by virtue of having to drive for that further time on...
To continue reading
Request your trial