A Co Clare man, whose Toyota Land Cruiser was 364 days out of test when he presented it for a new Certificate of Road Worthiness (CRW), was given a certificate of renewal valid for only 24 hours, the High Court has heard.
Michael Duffy’s commercial 4x4 passed the test on Friday, February 20th this year but the new certificate was valid for only one day.
It meant the CRW would again run out of date on the following day, Saturday, February 21st, 2015, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan stated on Monday in a reserved judgment.
Mr Duffy had asked the High Court for a declaration that the vehicle testing regulations, as changed in 2013 in accordance with a European directive, was incorrect in respect of his jeep.
He had also sought a declaration that he was entitled to a CRW for a period of 12 months from the 20th of February 2015.
Judge Noonan said the amended regulations applied to commercial vehicle roadworthiness and laid out the test due dates as on the first and each subsequent anniversary of its initial registration which, in Mr Duffy’s case, was February 21st, 2000.
He said the scheme of testing the road worthiness of commercial vehicles had been established for many years and an annual test for vehicles such as that owned by Mr Duffy had long been a feature.
Prior to the commencement of the amended regulations, commercial vehicles undergoing a test were issued with a certificate of road worthiness for a period of 12 months from the test date.
Judge Noonan said that although in theory the regulations required testing in consecutive 12-month periods, a vehicle owner who delayed in presenting the vehicle for testing for say three months after the expiry of the previous CRW, could effectively “gain” an extra three months.
“Of course if the vehicle was being used in a public place during that three months the owner would be committing an offence,” the judge said.
At no stage of the hearing was it suggested Mr Duffy had ever illegally used his vehicle in a public place while it was out of test.
Judge Noonan said the Road Safety Authority (RSA) considered that the "gain" anomaly in the regulations gave rise to a level of invidious discrimination against compliant commercial vehicle owners as against others who were not compliant.
He said the amended regulations had been brought into effect to address this apparent unfairness by resetting the test due date by reference to the anniversary of the vehicle’s first registration. The clear purpose of the measure was to eliminate any perceived advantage in disobeying the law.
The judge said there had been significant periods when Mr Duffy’s vehicle had been out of test and he had told the court he only discovered the true position about the amended 2013 regulations when he attempted to tax his vehicle in June 2014.
When on February 20th last, at which time the vehicle was 364 days out of test, the vehicle had passed the test but he had been issued with a certificate valid only until the following day.
Judge Noonan said Mr Duffy had argued that he had not actually been aware of the passage of the new regulations, but ignorance of the law could not avail the applicant.
He dismissed Mr Duffy’s legal challenge to the amended regulations.