Lloyd-Wolper v Moore & Ors

Lloyd-Wolper v Moore & Ors

A mistaken belief or misrepresentation as to the driver's licence or age does not negate the existence of permission under Section 151(8)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The appellant permitted the use of the vehicle, and is liable to indemnify the insurer for sums paid to third parties, regardless of his belief or the son's misrepresentation. Permission to drive an over-capacity vehicle also constitutes a separate ground for liability.

Parties
Claimant: Philip Owen Lloyd-Wolper; 1st Defendant/1st Part 20 Defendant: Robert Moore; 2nd Defendant/part 20 Claimants/respondents: National Insurance Guarantee Corporation plc; 2nd Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Charles Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance, Third Party Liability, Summary Judgment, Interpretation of 'permission' Under Road Traffic Act, Misrepresentation
Insurance Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Motor Insurance Third Party Liability Summary Judgment Interpretation of 'permission' Under Road Traffic Act Misrepresentation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Owen Lloyd-Wolper

Claimant

Robert Moore

1st Defendant/1st Part 20 Defendant

National Insurance Guarantee Corporation plc

2nd Defendant/part 20 Claimants/respondents

Charles Moore

2nd Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant 'caused or permitted the use of the vehicle' within the meaning of Section 151(8)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether a mistaken belief or misrepresentation as to the driver's licence or age negates 'permission' under the statute
  3. 3 Whether permission to drive an over-capacity vehicle constitutes a separate ground for liability

Ratio Decidendi

A mistaken belief or misrepresentation as to the driver's licence or age does not negate the existence of permission under Section 151(8)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The appellant permitted the use of the vehicle, and is liable to indemnify the insurer for sums paid to third parties, regardless of his belief or the son's misrepresentation. Permission to drive an over-capacity vehicle also constitutes a separate ground for liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondents' costs of the appeal, subject to assessment if not agreed