Oxfordshire County Council, R (on the application of) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator

A road may constitute a bus lane for civil-enforcement purposes even where the restriction covers the whole width of the road and is expressed in prohibitory terms. The relevant question is the overall effect of the traffic regulation order. Exemptions may define classes of vehicles or traffic by reference to the purpose or circumstances of use.

Under Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, signs must give adequate information about the practical effect of the order. They need not identify the precise legal basis or enforcement mechanism. A tribunal must consider relevant guidance and evidence, and cannot treat signage as adequate for criminal enforcement but inadequate for civil enforcement without adequate reasons.

Oxfordshire County Council sought judicial review of decisions by the Bus Lane Adjudicator and Chief Adjudicator allowing Shaun Duffy’s appeal against a penalty charge for driving through a restricted section of Oxford High Street.

The adjudicators held that the area was not a bus lane under section 144(5) of the Transport Act 2000, because the exemptions in Article 50B of the Oxfordshire County Council (City of Oxford) (Central Area) (Traffic Management) (Consolidation) Order 2003 were not classes of vehicles or traffic. They also considered the signs inadequate under regulation 18 of the 1996 Regulations. The central issues were whether the order created a bus lane and whether the signage provided adequate information about its effect.

1. Application granted. The Chief Adjudicator’s decision was set aside. The court declared that Article 50B of the Oxfordshire County Council (City of Oxford) (Central Area) (Traffic Management) (Consolidation) Order 2003 constituted the designated area as a bus lane within section 144(5) of the Transport Act 2000.
2. The statutory definition does not require a bus lane to occupy only part of a carriageway or to have a minimum length. The expression “an area of road” can include the whole width of a length of road.
3. Article 50B had to be construed as a whole. Although Article 50B(1) was prohibitory, the combined effect of Articles 50B(1)–(3) was to reserve the area for buses and specified other vehicles, with all other vehicles prohibited. That satisfied section 144(5).
4. “Class or classes of vehicles or traffic” was not confined to groups defined by generic characteristics of the vehicles or traffic. Section 142(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 included classes defined by any other circumstances, including the purpose for which a vehicle was being used or the activity being undertaken.
5. Regulation 18 of the 1996 Regulations required signs giving adequate information about the practical effect of the order. It did not require notice that the prohibition was legally a bus lane or that it could be enforced civilly. The adjudicators therefore erred by treating the absence of traditional bus-lane signs as decisive.
6. The signage conclusions were also vitiated because relevant Department for Transport guidance, the Council’s modifications to the signs, and the fact that the signs were adequate for criminal enforcement were not properly considered. The finding that the signs were adequate for criminal proceedings but inadequate for civil enforcement was irrational in the Wednesbury sense. The court declined to make the second declaration in the form sought, because signage adequacy remained fact-sensitive, and invited submissions on an appropriate alternative formulation.

This was a first-instance judicial review application. The Council challenged the Adjudicator’s decision of 16 November 2008 and the Chief Adjudicator’s decision of 8 April 2009, which confirmed the allowance of Mr Duffy’s appeal.