Devlin v Hall

Date

7 June 1990

Legislation

Trade Descriptions Act 1968, s.1(1)

Keywords

meaning of business; meaning of trade; regularity of transactions

Counsel

Daniel Matovu, Simon Blackford

Solicitors:

Worthington Edridge Hulme & Co, Folkestone; DP Clephan, Maidstone

Judge:

Farquharson LJ, Alliott J

Court:

High Court (Queen’s Bench Divisional Court)

Reported:

[1990] Crim LR 879

Summary

The defendant was convicted in the magistrates court for two offences contrary s1(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 relating to vehicle odometer clocking for the sale of cars "in the course of a trade or business". The defendant appealed to the Crown Court which upheld the convictions.

The defendant was a self-employed private car hire driver.

Decision

Alliot J cited the principles set out by the House of Lords in Davies v Sumner, and concluded as follows:

• the sale of the vehicle was a transaction incidental to the carrying on of the defendant's business;
• in order for the prosecutor to be able to rely upon such an incidental transaction a degree of regularity has to be established; and
• in this case the number of transactions was insufficient to establish the necessary regularity.

Consequently the appeal was allowed.