Leila Pereira

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when her husband was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish due diligence, as she knew of her husband's prior suspension and took no steps to verify his current licence status.

However, the Tribunal found that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant and her family relied on the vehicle to commute to multiple jobs across different cities, and the lack of reasonable alternatives posed a significant risk of job loss.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after the vehicle was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant claimed due diligence and exceptional hardship.

However, the appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving his claims on a balance of probabilities and presented no evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not insisting on seeing the driver's licence, and that the impoundment did not cause exceptional hardship because the appellant had adequate transportation alternatives.