- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Adams (1993) CA
I. Facts of the Case
I. Facts of the Case
- Defendant (D): Filling out a car hire form.
- Question 1: Previous convictions for motoring offences?
- Question 2: Ever been disqualified from driving?
- D's Response: Ticked "No" for both questions.
- Falsehood: D had been disqualified from driving for four years previously.
- Charges:
- Obtaining services (car hire) by deception.
- Obtaining a pecuniary advantage (insurance cover) by deception.
- Ticking "No" was not a false representation.
- It was the correct answer to one of the questions.
- False Representation Existed
- Reasoning:
- The form was badly drafted but not misleading.
- "No" box should only have been ticked if the answer to both questions was "No."
- Ambiguous Wording: Even if a question is poorly worded, a defendant can still be found to have made a false representation if the overall impression conveyed is false.
- Subjective Interpretation vs. Objective Meaning: The court prioritized an objective interpretation of the form over the defendant's subjective interpretation.
- Implied Representation: By ticking the "No" box, the defendant implied that he had never been disqualified, which was false.
0 Comments