Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v F & S Gibbs Transport Services Ltd

For the statutory defence to using an overweight goods vehicle, the “nearest available” weighbridge means the nearest weighbridge that is objectively available and usable. It does not mean the nearest weighbridge known to the driver.

The defence places responsibility on operators and drivers to ascertain the location of the nearest available weighbridge. A driver’s lack of knowledge does not enlarge the statutory defence. This construction supports the legislative purpose of preventing potentially dangerous overweight vehicles from travelling on the road and avoids making enforcement dependent on a driver’s unverifiable assertion of ignorance.

The respondent’s driver was prosecuted after a goods vehicle and trailer were found to be substantially overweight. The vehicle had been loaded at a farm where no weighing facility existed. The driver was travelling towards a weighbridge known to him, but a nearer weighbridge was objectively available.

The East Wiltshire Justices concluded that section 41 B(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 required only that the vehicle be proceeding to the nearest weighbridge known to the driver, and dismissed the information. The Agency appealed by case stated. The central issue was whether “nearest available” referred to objective availability or to the driver’s knowledge.

1. Appeal allowed. The statutory defence in section 41 B(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 refers to the nearest weighbridge that is objectively available and usable, irrespective of whether the driver knows of it.
2. Section 41 B(1) creates an absolute offence. The prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew that the vehicle was overweight. Section 41 B(2) provides a defence which the defendant must establish.
3. The word “available” incorporates practical availability. A weighbridge may be disregarded if, for example, it is unsuitable for the vehicle or out of operation. The court applied the approach in Lovett v Payne [1980] RTR 103, under which the relevant weighbridge is the nearest place to which the vehicle can practically travel to be weighed.
4. Reading the provision as referring only to a weighbridge known to the driver would add words to the statute and would seriously weaken enforcement. It would also undermine the statutory purpose of protecting the public from overweight and potentially dangerous vehicles.
5. Hauliers can reasonably ascertain the nearest available weighbridge and inform their drivers. If they fail to do so, the statutory defence is unavailable where the vehicle is proceeding to a weighbridge that is not objectively the nearest available one.
6. The matter was remitted with a direction to convict. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs in the appeal and below, subject to assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the Agency’s appeal by case stated, set aside the justices’ conclusion and remitted the matter with a direction to convict.
• East Wiltshire Justices: Dismissed the information after holding that the defence required only the nearest weighbridge known to the driver.