The respondent, a motor vehicle repairer, retailer of petrol and authorized MOT tester, was charged with two offences concerning the same motor vehicle. One information alleged that the respondent had contravened s.1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, namely that he had supplied the vehicle to which a false trade description was applied by means of the odometer indicating 42,000 miles whereas the vehicle had travelled at least 91,000.
The magistrates dismissed both informations, the first on the ground that the supply was not 'in the course of a trade or business'.
On appeal Held The justices were in error in coming to the conclusion that the supply of the vehicle had not taken place in the course of a trade or business; that the supply of the vehicle in question was not part of the respondent's usual business was immaterial. In this instance there was direct commercial involvement in that the supply was for profit and was carried out at the respondent's business premises which provided overwhelming evidence that it was supplied in the course of a trade or business.