Vehicle & Operator Services Agency v Hobbs

Whether an item is a farming implement for the operator-licensing exception is a factual question. The court need not impose a confined test based on the item's construction, fittings or permanent characteristics. It may consider whether the item is normally used by farmers for farming and whether it was being transported for farming purposes. Farming purposes may include maintaining farm tracks, excavating drainage ditches, removing spoil and improving banks. The exception is for the defendant to establish on the balance of probabilities. A farmer cannot bring an item within the exception merely by asserting that it was used for farming on one particular day when its normal use is non-farming.

The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency appealed by way of case stated from the decision of justices sitting at Bodmin. Mr Hobbs had been charged with five offences arising from his use of an agricultural tractor and trailer to transport a dumper truck. The appeal concerned only the charge under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, which required consideration of an exception for hauling farming implements.

The justices found that the dumper truck was normally used for farming and was being returned to Mr Hobbs's farm for work including maintaining farm tracks, excavating drainage ditches, removing spoil and improving banks. They acquitted him. The central issue was whether the justices had applied the correct approach in deciding that the dumper truck was a farming implement.

1. Appeal dismissed. The justices were entitled to acquit Mr Hobbs on the operator-licence charge.
2. The relevant exception under Part 2 of the schedule to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 was the exception for hauling farming implements. As an exception, the burden lay on Mr Hobbs to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he came within it.
3. The court rejected the submission that the test should be whether the construction, fittings or other permanent characteristics of the dumper truck showed that it was mainly used for farming. The authorities relied on concerned different transport legislation and different questions concerning specialised vehicles and tachographs.
4. The proper approach was a factual one. The justices could ask whether the dumper truck was normally used by farmers for farming and whether it was the dumper truck being transported for farming purposes. There was no need to impose a more confined test. Objects may be farming implements in one context and not in another. For example, forks, spades and buckets transported between parts of a farm may qualify, whereas the same articles transported for sale to a hardware store would not.
5. The court cautioned that a farmer could not establish the exception merely by relying on use for farming on a particular day where the item's normal use was non-farming. On the facts found, the dumper truck had been used on one farm for farming and was being returned to another farm for farming work.
6. Maintaining farm tracks, excavating drainage ditches, removing spoil and improving banks could constitute farming purposes. The justices were therefore entitled to find that the exception applied. Mrs Justice Swift agreed. An order for costs from central funds was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on an appeal by way of case stated, dismissed the appeal from the justices' decision.
• Justices for the County of Cornwall sitting at Bodmin: acquitted Mr Hobbs of the operator-licence charge after finding that the dumper truck came within the farming-implement exception.