Vehicle & Operator Services Agency, R (on the application of) v Kayes

Vehicle & Operator Services Agency, R (on the application of) v Kayes

Refreshment kiosks operated by a showman and transported in a vehicle specifically designed for that purpose are equipment of the show within the meaning of section 62 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994; the vehicle qualifies for the showman's goods vehicle exemption and is not subject to the usual licensing, testing, and taxation requirements.

Parties
Claimant: Vehicle & Operator Services Agency; Respondent: William Raymond Kayes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vehicle Licensing, Showman's Exemption, Goods Vehicle Definition, Taxation, Regulatory Compliance

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vehicle & Operator Services Agency

Claimant

William Raymond Kayes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's vehicle qualifies as a showman's goods vehicle under section 62 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the vehicle is exempt from testing and licensing requirements under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and related regulations
  3. 3 Whether refreshment kiosks are equipment of the show for purposes of exemption

Ratio Decidendi

Refreshment kiosks operated by a showman and transported in a vehicle specifically designed for that purpose are equipment of the show within the meaning of section 62 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994; the vehicle qualifies for the showman's goods vehicle exemption and is not subject to the usual licensing, testing, and taxation requirements.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent awarded £80 costs for travel expenses