Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
captain cab wrote:
surely the mere indemnification for the passengers doesn't automatically mean the vehicle is insured?
If my policy says I am insured then I am insured...if it says that I am not .. then I am not.
Take it up with their Lordships.
Don't have to..
Mr Hussain, for the respondent, did not object to us considering this additional material. We were prepared to do so. Mr Hussain argued in written submissions, as he had done at the hearing, that the domestic legislation is clear'
that it plainly invalidates area-based restrictions in insurance policies, of the type at issue in this case; that there was no reason to construe the legislation in the unnatural manner proposed by the appellant; and that the law was not thereby rendered deficient; it adequately punished those who ply for hire outside the geographical area of their licence, since by doing so they commit a criminal offence (to which his client had pleaded guilty) irrespective of the insurance position. We agree. We did not find in Mr Moss's added submissions any good reason to alter our reasoning or the conclusion to which it leads. The appeal is dismissed.