Cleansing Service Group Ltd v Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

An exemption from goods vehicle operator licensing for agricultural hauling must be construed according to the ordinary and natural meaning of its words. The reference to “the keeper” concerns the keeper of the vehicle, not the occupier of the farm. A contractor is employed by the farm occupier only where there is a contractual relationship between them. A haulage contractor engaged by a third party remains outside the exemption, even if the goods are delivered to a farm and agricultural work is performed there.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against its conviction by the South East Wiltshire Justices for using a goods vehicle without an operator’s licence, contrary to sections 2(1) and 2(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The claimant used an agricultural tractor and trailer to transport and spread biosolids at a farm. It relied on the exemption in regulation 33 and Schedule 3, Part II, paragraph 2 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995. The central issues were the meaning of “keeper” and whether the claimant was a contractor employed to do agricultural work on the farm by its occupier.

1. Meaning of “keeper”. Sullivan J held that paragraph 2 referred to the keeper of the vehicle, whoever that might be, rather than the keeper or occupier of the farm. The use of “keeper” elsewhere in Part II, including paragraph 7, supported that construction. The statutory definition in regulation 3 applied unless the context otherwise required, but it was unnecessary to decide whether the definition invariably identified the registered keeper. In any event, the claimant’s proposed construction identifying the farm occupier was untenable.
2. Contractual relationship. The words “a contractor employed to do agricultural work on the farm by the occupier of the farm” required a contractual nexus between the contractor and the farm occupier. “Employed” was not restricted to a master and servant relationship, since the provision expressly contemplated an independent contractor. However, it could not be detached from “contractor” or construed as merely meaning used. The claimant was employed by Wessex Water, not by the farm occupier.
3. Construction of the exemption. The criminal character of the legislation did not justify a broad construction. Each word of the exception had to be given effect, and the exception bore its ordinary and natural meaning. Its purpose was to cover farmers, or contractors employed by farmers, using their own tractors to carry articles required for agricultural work on the farm. It was not intended to benefit a business whose essential activity was road haulage.
4. The possibility that the contractual arrangements could have been organised differently did not make the defendant’s interpretation illogical. The answer to question 2 was that a contractual relationship was required. Question 3 was answered affirmatively as agreed by both parties, although it did not strictly arise. The answer to question 4 was yes. Latham LJ agreed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

• South East Wiltshire Justices, Salisbury Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of unlawfully using a goods vehicle without an operator’s licence, imposed a conditional discharge for 12 months and ordered £1,000 prosecution costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and awarded the respondent its costs.