Vehicle & Operator Services Agency v Clayton

An exemption for a vehicle being used for funerals does not ordinarily extend to a heavy goods vehicle transporting a hearse and horses to the place where a funeral will occur. The relevant question is the vehicle’s use at the material time. Exemptions from operator-licensing requirements must be construed in light of the statutory purpose of protecting road users and preventing accidents. Transport undertaken solely to move equipment to a future place of use may be too remote from the exempt activity. The conclusion remains fact-sensitive: following a funeral procession, or transferring a hearse bearing the coffin between locations during the funeral, may fall within the exemption.

The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency appealed by case stated from the North Avon Magistrates’ Court, which had dismissed an information against Mr Clayton under section 2 of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995. Mr Clayton had driven a 7.5-tonne goods vehicle carrying horses and a horse-drawn hearse from Northamptonshire towards a funeral in Bristol. He held no operator’s licence.

The magistrates found that the vehicle was purpose-built and used solely in connection with funerals, and concluded that it fell within paragraph 5 of part 1 of schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995. The central issue was whether, when stopped before the funeral, the vehicle was being used for funerals.

The appeal was allowed on the stated question. The court answered no and held that the magistrates had erred in law. No further order was made, and the matter was not remitted.

1. The words being used for funerals can bear meanings of different breadth. Their construction must reflect the purpose of the operator-licensing scheme, namely protecting road users by preventing road accidents. That purpose favours a narrower construction of the exemption.

2. The court applied the reasoning in Vehicle Inspectorate v Bruce Cook Road Planing Limited [1999] 1 WLR 1907. Transporting equipment to a site before the relevant work begins is ordinarily merely transportation and may be too remote from the exempt activity. The same reasoning applied to the journey carrying the hearse and horses to the funeral.

3. The vehicle was being used to transport the hearse and horses over a substantial distance. At that time it was not being used in the funeral procession or at a funeral location. That use was indistinguishable from ordinary carriage of goods by road and fell outside paragraph 5 of part 1 of schedule 3.

4. The exemption nevertheless had to be given practical effect. A heavy goods vehicle following a procession for safety purposes, or transferring a hearse bearing the coffin between locations during the funeral, could fall within the exemption. The court emphasised that its conclusion turned on the particular facts.

5. The Agency sought clarification of the law only. The case was not remitted, and no costs were sought from Mr Clayton.

• North Avon Magistrates’ Court: on 14 August 2009, dismissed the information and found that the vehicle fell within the funeral exemption.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by case stated, answered the stated question in the negative, held that the magistrates had erred in law, and made no further order.