London Borough of Haringey v Michniewicz

Offering a single article for sale in a street can constitute street trading. The statutory concept does not require proof of repeated transactions or a continuing business. Where an article is displayed for sale in circumstances falling within section 38(2)(a) of the London Local Authorities Act 1990, the statutory presumption applies. The person having care or control must then satisfy the court that the article was brought into the street for another purpose. A single motor vehicle displayed with a for-sale notice is therefore capable of amounting to unlicensed street trading.

A local authority prosecuted the defendant under section 38 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 after seizing a motor vehicle displayed in a street with a for-sale notice. The magistrates accepted the evidence but dismissed the information, holding that the offer of one vehicle could not amount to trading. On a case stated, the Divisional Court considered whether offering no more than one motor vehicle for sale in the street constituted street trading requiring a licence.

1. The appeal was allowed. The case was remitted to the justices with a direction that they continue the hearing.
2. Section 21 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 defines street trading as selling, exposing or offering an article for sale, or supplying or offering a service, in a street for gain or reward. That wording does not require more than one article or transaction.
3. Section 38(2)(a) is plainly applicable where a single article is displayed in a street. The statutory presumption is not confined to cases involving several vehicles or evidence of a regular trading activity.
4. The related deeming provision in section 23 confirms that a person may engage in street trading whether or not he regularly carries on that business. Regularity is therefore not an essential element of the offence.
5. Once the vehicle was shown to have been displayed in the street with a for-sale notice, section 38(2) presumed that it had been exposed or offered for sale by the person having care or control. The burden then fell on the defendant to satisfy the court that it had been brought into the street for another purpose. He had not attempted to discharge that burden at the hearing.
6. Lord Justice Rose agreed with Mr Justice Holland and confirmed that the display for sale of a single motorcar in a street was capable of giving rise to unlicensed street trading.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): On a case stated from the magistrates, the appeal was allowed and the case remitted for the hearing to continue.
2. Haringey Magistrates’ Court: The information was dismissed on the basis that offering one vehicle for sale could not amount to street trading.