Reading Borough Council v Younis

When magistrates determine whether a person is a trader, their reasons must identify the principal contentious issues and explain how those issues were resolved. Regularity of dealing is relevant to whether vehicle sales form part of a business. Where the prosecution relies on repeated sales, the magistrates must address whether the sales show the required degree of regularity. A general statement that all the evidence has been considered does not cure failure to address that central issue.

Reading Borough Council appealed by way of case stated against the Berkshire Justices’ dismissal of five informations concerning the sale of a motor vehicle by Nadeem Younis. Four informations alleged offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; the fifth alleged a false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.

The magistrates were not sure that Mr Younis had sold the vehicle as a trader. The Council argued that their reasons failed to address its evidence that he had offered nineteen vehicles for sale over approximately eighteen months, and failed adequately to explain the conclusion that he was not a trader. The central issue was whether the reasons were legally adequate.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ answers to questions 7(1) and 7(2) were “no”. Their decision was flawed because they had failed to address a key issue. The case was remitted to the magistrates.
2. In a case stated by magistrates, the reasons must demonstrate that the deciding court identified the main contentious issues and show how it resolved them, so that the parties can understand why the decision was reached. This principle was stated in Northumberland County Council v PR Manufacturing Ltd [2004] EWHC 112 (Admin) and endorsed in R (on the application of) Woking Borough Council v Keenan [2005] EWHC 979 (Admin).
3. Regulation 2 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 defines a trader as a person acting in relation to a commercial practice for purposes relating to his business, or acting in the name of or on behalf of a trader.
4. Regularity of dealing is relevant to whether a person is acting in the course of trade or business. The magistrates were required to consider whether Mr Younis’s sale of nineteen vehicles between February 2009 and August 2011 showed a degree of regularity making him a trader. Davies v Sumner [1984] 1 WLR 1301 (HL) established the relevance of regularity, while recognising that a single transaction in the nature of trade may also suffice.
5. The magistrates referred generally to having considered all the evidence but did not address the repeated sales or explain how that evidence affected the trader issue. They therefore skirted the central question. It was unnecessary to determine the remaining questions. No order as to costs was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was allowed. The magistrates’ decision was held inadequately reasoned and the case was remitted for reconsideration.