London Borough of Havering v Stevenson

Date

7 July 1970

Legislation

Trade Descriptions Act 1968, s.1(1)

Keywords

meaning of business; meaning of trade

Counsel

Anthony Scrivener, Dominic Eady

Solicitors:

John E Symons, Romford; H Montlake & Co, Ilford.

Judge:

Lord Parker CJ, James and Cooke JJ.

Court:

High Court (Queen’s Bench Divisional Court)

Reported:

[1970] 3 All ER 609; [1970] 1 WLR 1375.

Summary:

Stevenson ran a car-hire business and had a fleet of 24 cars. He made a regular practice of selling his hire cars after he had had them about two years, when he chose to run his fleet down or when the condition of a particular vehicle warranted it; but he never bought cars and sold them for a greater price.

One of these vehicles was sold by Stevenson with a claimed mileage of 34,000 miles but the correct mileage was found to be around 50,000. He was tried in the magistrates court for an offence contrary to s1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 but the justices dismissed the informations as the relevant supply was not made "in the course of a trade or business". The Council then appealed.

Decision:

Lord Parker CJ held that:

• a car-hire business, as part of its normal practice buys and disposes of cars;
• it is almost inevitable on these facts that the selling of a car and the application of a trade description in the course of that sale, was an integral part of the business carried on as a car-hire firm; and
• It is not necessary in order that an offence should be established to prove in the present case that the respondent was in business or trade as a vendor or a dealer.

This decision was considered in the House of Lords decision in the case of Davies v Sumner but was not criticised and thus remains good law despite the fact that the Davies v Sumner case reached a different conclusion. It is thus important to note that each case on this issue relates to its facts and it is quite possible for two differently constituted benches to reach different conclusions.