Rated criminal solicitor defending those accused by Trading Standards Services of unfair commercial practices

It was a criminal offence for a shop to offer food for sale after its labelled use by date. The words "deemed to be unsafe" in Regulation 1169/2011 art.24 created an irrebuttable presumption that food placed on the market with an expired use by date was "unsafe" for the purposes of Regulation 179/2002 art.14.

In respect of alleged offences of fraud and engaging in an unfair commercial practice, a judge had correctly concluded that the enforceability of late payment and cancellation fees relating to the supply of domestic Energy Performance Certificates was a matter for him to determine. There was no legitimate interest in the charging of disproportionate late payment fees for the supply of the certificates.

A company selling reclining armchairs to vulnerable customers, and its director, had their convictions for engaging in unfair commercial practices upheld. The director had connived in an aggressive commercial practice when he sent a letter to a 75-year-old disabled woman stating that she would only receive a refund if the offer of the refund and the settlement amount remained confidential.

In the case of a car trader guilty of falsely claiming or creating the impression that he was not acting for purposes relating to his trade, contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it was proportionate to base a confiscation order on the turnover, rather than merely the profit, on the sale of 58 cars he sold as a private seller. His entire enterprise was characterised by his deliberate misrepresentations intended to meet his objective of avoiding having to provide a warranty.

The phrase "commercial practice" as used in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 could, depending on the circumstances, cover either a single incident or a pattern of repeated behaviour.

A magistrates' court had been wrong, when determining an offender's mode of trial for offences contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 reg.9 and reg.11, in applying fraud sentencing guidelines. Those offences were not based on dishonesty and had no sentencing guidelines.

In principle, when assessing loss or damage under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.130 for the purposes of making a compensation order in relation to an offence of aggressive commercial practice committed against a householder, no account had to be taken of any benefit conferred on the victim from any work caused to be or actually carried out by the offender.

Where persons charged with aggravated trespass under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.68 sought to show that the offence was not made out because there was no "lawful activity" at the premises in question, that lawful activity had to be considered by reference to acts or events that were integral to the activity itself. In the instant case, the court could not have been expected to adjudicate on the appellants' allegations that the company that ran the shop in which they had conducted a protest was complicit in war crimes.

A district judge had been entitled to dismiss the credit hire element of a claimant's claim for damages following a road traffic accident where (i) as the credit hire agreement for a replacement vehicle had been made between the credit hire company and the claimant at the latter's home, the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 applied to the agreement; (ii) the Regulations rendered the agreement unenforceable because the credit hire company had failed to provide the claimant with a cancellation notice as required by the Regulations; (iii) that in turn disentitled the claimant from recovering from the defendant sums otherwise due from him to the credit hire company.

An offence could be committed under s.20(1) Consumer Protection Act 1987 without any evidence to prove that an indication by means of a notice applied to specific goods available at a specific price. * Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

A retailer who refused to honour a price promise was not guilty of an offence under s.20(2) Consumer Protection Act 1987.