1996 Tunbridge Wells-v-Dunn

1 Tunbridge Wells Council contended that a pedlar must remain in perpetual motion.

2 Council contended that a pedlar, by stopping, fell outside  the protection provided by his Pedlars Certificate.

3 The Justices determined the facts a) that Dunn held a valid Pedlars Certificate b) that Dunn was not trading from a fixed position c) that Dunn moved up & down a busy shopping street e) he did not have a stand f) he did not have articles on the ground g) he stopped & waited for members of the public to approach him h) he regularly travelled to other towns.

4 The facts provided evidence that Dunn was a pedlar as defined in the Pedlars Act.

5 The Appeal by Tunbridge Wells Council was dismissed.

download this case