Decidebloom Ltd (t/a Stoneacre Motor Group) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [2008] EWHC 3328 (Admin) (10 December 2008)

Decidebloom Ltd (t/a Stoneacre Motor Group) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [2008] EWHC 3328 (Admin) (10 December 2008)

Convictions quashed because the advertisement was not specific enough to apply a false trade description to a particular vehicle, and the information charged 'brand new' when evidence only supported 'new'; material difference between 'brand new' and 'new' meant the prosecution failed to prove the information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 3328 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Decidebloom Limited t/a Stoneacre Motor Group; Defendant: Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Trade Descriptions, False Trade Description, Advertising, Motor Vehicles
Criminal Law Consumer Protection Trade Descriptions False Trade Description Advertising Motor Vehicles

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Decidebloom Limited t/a Stoneacre Motor Group

Claimant

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a newspaper advertisement can apply a trade description to a specific vehicle under section 1(1)(a) Trade Descriptions Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether a pre-registered vehicle can be described as 'new' or 'brand new' under the Act
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on the informations

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions quashed because the advertisement was not specific enough to apply a false trade description to a particular vehicle, and the information charged 'brand new' when evidence only supported 'new'; material difference between 'brand new' and 'new' meant the prosecution failed to prove the information.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Convictions on both informations quashed
  • Extension of time for filing notice of appeal granted