ON APPEAL FROM THE MAYORS & CITY OF LONDON COUNTY COURT
( DEPUTY CIRCUIT JUDGE LAURIE )
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY
WOLMAN
CLAIMANT/APPELLANT
- v -
ISLINGTON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
(DAR Transcript of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN PERSON.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY: What does the word “on” mean in Section 15(i) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act which says that:
“… any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway, shall be guilty of an offence …”?
The applicant, who is a barrister, parks his motorcycle chained to railings on the pavement outside his house in Islington and, sometimes, in Chancery Lane near his chambers standing on its stand so that both its wheels are off the pavement. On the trial of a preliminary issue in these proceedings HHJ Laurie made a declaration that the prohibition in Section 15(1) includes “parking with one or more wheels raised over the surface” of any part of an urban road. The applicant applies for permission to appeal from this decision.
His arguments are set out clearly and extensively in a 65-paragraph skeleton argument. Put shortly, he says that on a proper construction of the sub-section no offence is committed unless one or more of the wheels are touching or supported by the pavement. The applicant accepts that a wheel resting on a piece of wood which itself was on the pavement would be supported by and therefore on the pavement. I wonder therefore whether a wheel indirectly supported by the stand on the pavement would not similarly qualify. But that is an argument for another day. All I need say at the moment is that having considered the skeleton argument, I consider the appeal has real as opposed to fanciful prospects of success. I am told that it raises an issue of importance to London boroughs and motor cyclists alike, and I can well understand why.
For these reasons I think this is a case in which permission to appeal should be granted.
(discussion between judge and appellant)
The appeal should be listed for three hours and can be heard by two Lords Justices.
Order: Application granted.