Vuvamu v Secretary of State for Transport

Under section 3 of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995, revocation of a new driver’s licence after qualifying penalty points is mandatory. If service of the revocation notice is arguable or ineffective, the DVLA remains obliged to revoke the licence, so judicial review may provide no practical benefit. Judicial review must be sought promptly and, in any event, within three months under Part 54.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. These time limits apply equally to litigants in person. A late appellant’s notice also requires a sufficient explanation before an extension of time can be granted.

The appellant challenged the DVLA’s treatment of his driving licence as revoked following his conviction for driving without insurance during the probationary period under the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. The DVLA asserted that it had posted a revocation notice in August 2007. The appellant denied receiving it and relied on the later return of his licence and the quashing of a conviction for driving without a valid licence.

His Honour Judge Pelling QC refused permission to apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court, holding that the claim lacked merit, was academic or stale, and was out of time. The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal. The central issues were whether revocation had occurred, whether any challenge could produce a practical benefit, and whether extensions of time should be granted.

Disposition

Rimer LJ refused an extension of time for filing the appellant’s notice and refused permission to appeal.

1. The quashing of the appellant’s criminal conviction did not amount to an in rem declaration that he had, or had always had, a full driving licence. The criminal proceedings involved a different burden and did not determine the civil public-law issue.
2. Service of a revocation notice was required to effect revocation. Rimer LJ had reservations about the conclusion that failure of service was unarguable, since the assumed non-receipt might constitute proof of the contrary for the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. The point did not justify permission, however. Even if the licence had not been revoked in August 2007, section 3 of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 imposed a continuing and mandatory obligation on the DVLA to revoke it. A finding in the appellant’s favour would therefore lead inevitably to a fresh revocation. The return or erroneous issue of the licence could not exempt him from the statutory regime.
3. The judicial review claim was hopelessly stale. Part 54.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 required the claim to be filed promptly and, in any event, within three months after the grounds first arose. The appellant knew by November 2009 that the DVLA claimed to have revoked his licence, but did not issue proceedings until January 2012. Judicial review is discretionary and must be sought with considerable promptness.
4. The appellant’s notice was filed seven weeks late. The procedural time limits applied equally to a litigant in person, and the explanation for the delay was insufficient. In light of the claim’s lack of merit, its manifest staleness and the unexplained delay in appealing, there was no justification for an extension of time.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Rafferty LJ refused permission to appeal on the papers. On renewal, Rimer LJ refused an extension of time for filing the appellant’s notice and refused permission to appeal.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: His Honour Judge Pelling QC refused permission to apply for judicial review and refused permission to appeal, in the decision cited as [2012] EWHC 3824 (Admin).