Exceptional hardship

There is not a statutory definition of exceptional hardship.

Obviously everybody has their own reasons for not wanting to be disqualified but there is a significant difference between inconvenience or impracticability and exceptional hardship.

For hardship to be exceptional, it must be more than is normally suffered. It will be a question of fact to be judged by the Court on the evidence before them. The argument put forward must therefore be a strong one and stand up to interpretation and questions from the Court. The effect of any driving disqualification on others will also be seriously considered, e.g. family members, employees, etc. The burden of proof is on the defendant.

If you are liable to a period of disqualification under what is referred to under the "totting up" provisions (i.e. twelve points or more) the Court must impose a minimum mandatory period of six months disqualification, unless it can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that exceptional other than ordinary hardship exists.

Many clients arrive at court not only unrepresented but also unprepared to address the court in relation to the pertinent points. It is therefore imperative that the Court is presented with all relevant facts in an admissible and orderly fashion in readiness for the hearing; this will ensure the best possible chance of receiving a favourable result and will also avoid a lengthy and expensive appeal process. For this reason it is advisable that a defendant be represented.

Even if there is exceptional hardship the Court still has a discretion whether or not to disqualify. It may disqualify for a reduced period at their discretion or indeed no period at all. The same argument may not be put forward again within three years, but the Court may hear an exceptional hardship submission within that time if there are a change in circumstances and different factors are put forward.

Contact us now using our online contact form below to discuss your specific circumstances.