Taxi Driver Online

I am posting this case because It is one which everyone should have in their library. It is quite a famous case but most people will not have it in electronic format, if they indeed have it all.

TDO might not be around forever so you may wish to save any article of importance for your own future reference.

See the Warriner v York case in relation to this case.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3790

Regards

JD
...................................................................................

R v Weymouth Corporation, Ex parte Teletax (Weymouth) Ltd

TRANSPORT; Road


KING’S BENCH DIVISION
LORD GODDARD CJ, ATKINSON AND OLIVER JJ
16 APRIL 1947

Street and Aerial Traffic – Hackney carriage – Licence – Change of ownership of licensed hackney carriage – New owner’s right to amendment of licence and register – Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (c 89), s 37.

The licence in respect of a hackney carriage granted under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s 37, is granted to the carriage and not to the owner of the carriage, and, therefore, if a change of ownership takes place during the time for which the licence is valid, the new owner is entitled to have his name entered on the licence and the register of licences in place of that of the former owner.

Motion
Motion for order of mandamus.

The applicants had acquired five taxicabs which were licensed by the Weymouth Corporation under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s 37, the licences being current. They applied to the corporation to recognise and give effect to the change of ownership by substituting their name for the names of the former owners on the licences and the register of licences, but the corporation refused the application. The facts appear in the judgment of Lord Goddard CJ.

J T Molony for the applicants.
Vernon Gattie for the respondents.

16 April 1947. The following judgments were delivered.

LORD GODDARD CJ. In my opinion, this mandamus must go. The question that is raised is one of considerable importance to local authorities who are entrusted with the duty of granting licences in respect of hackney carriages under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, and it is, apparently, a question which has never yet been the subject of a decision in this court.

The facts necessary to be stated are few. Some time in the summer of 1946, the applicants for this mandamus, a company called Teletax Ltd acquired five taxicabs from different persons in the borough of Weymouth, which taxicabs at that time had been licensed for one year at the general licensing meeting held for that purpose by the corporation of Weymouth. The licences would not expire until 30 April 1947. Having acquired those taxicabs, the applicants applied to the town council for the licences which had been granted in respect of those taxicabs to be transferred to them.

The matter was the subject of several debates. The watch committee, to whom these applications go in the first instance, reported to the council against the application, and the council affirmed the watch committee. At a later date, 779the watch committee advised that licences should be issued to the applicants, but the council declined to adopt that recommendation and refused the application. The precise nature of the application which the applicants desired to make was put forward in a letter from their solicitors, dated 16 December 1946, saying:

‘We think it well, therefore, for you to know that our clients’ counsel has advised that your council, under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, are bound by necessary implication to consider and give effect to changes in owners of licensed vehicles, and that mandamus will lie to compel them so to act and to exclude irrelevant matters from their consideration.’

When the application for leave to move was made, the relief that was claimed was:
‘… an order for mandamus to the Weymouth Borough Council to hear and determine according to law the application of the applicants to recognise and give effect to the change of ownership of the said 5 hackney carriages by amendment of the licences and the council’s register of licences, or, alternatively, the issue of new licences in the name of the applicants.’
The matter depends on the true construction of certain sections in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, for it is under that Act that local authorities grant hackney carriage licences. In my opinion, the sole question is whether or not licences are granted in respect of cabs or in respect of proprietors of cabs. Before a vehicle can be on the road to ply for hire a licence must be obtained, no matter who the driver is, whether he is a licensed driver or not, because I shall show that by s 46 of the Act of 1847 the licensing of drivers is with regard to the driving of licensed cabs.
Section 37 of the Act is:

‘The commissioners may from time to time licence to ply for hire within the prescribed distance, or if no distance is prescribed, within 5 miles from the general post office of the city, town, or place to which the special Act refers, (which in that case shall be deemed the prescribed distance,) such number of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of persons as they think fit.’

That seems to be a reasonably clear section, and, if we give it the ordinary meaning which the English language bears, it is clear that the commissioners are to license a vehicle as a hackney carriage. It seems plain that Parliament had in mind that it was desirable that the commissioners should be able to control the number of carriages which plied for hire in a given area and should also be entitled to prescribe the kind and the description of the carriages. No doubt, the local authority would have power to refuse to grant a licence if they thought that the construction of the cab, to use the common expression, was not satisfactory. I have no doubt that they could take that matter into consideration just as they could take into consideration the number of cabs which were already licensed, so that there would not be an undue number.
Section 38 provides what vehicles are to be considered hackney carriages.
By s 40:

‘Before any such licence is granted a requisition for the same, in such form as the commissioners from time to time provide for that purpose, shall be made and signed by the proprietor or one of the proprietors of the hackney carriage in respect of which such licence is applied for … ’

Observe here that there is no direction in this section that the proprietor has to make an application for a licence for himself. The requisition is to be filled in and signed “by the proprietor of the hackney carriage in respect of which such licence is applied for.” That appears to show that it is the vehicle which is licensed, and not the person owning the vehicle. Section 40 continues:

‘… and in every such requisition shall be truly stated the name and surname and place of abode of the person applying for such licence, and of every proprietor or part proprietor of such carriage, or person concerned, either solely or in partnership with any other person, in the keeping, employing, or letting to hire of such carriage … ’

Section 41 seems to be also of considerable importance:

‘In every such licence shall be specified the name and surname and place of abode of every person who is a proprietor or part proprietor of the hackney carriage in respect of which such licence is granted, or who is concerned, either solely or in partnership with any other person, in the keeping, employing, or letting to hire of780 any such carriage, and also the number of such licence which shall correspond with the number to be painted or marked on the plates to be fixed on such carriage, together with such other particulars as the commissioners think fit.’

There, again, the section contains a clear statement that it is the hackney carriage that is licensed. It would have been simple in that section (as, indeed, in s 37 or in any other section of this part of the Act) to refer to the licensing of the proprietor to keep a particular carriage if Parliament had so intended. Parliament, however, seems to have emphasised in the sections I have read that the licensing is the licensing of a carriage, and not of any particular person.
Section 42 is:

‘Every licence shall be made out by the clerk of the commissioners, and duly entered in a book to be provided by him for that purpose; and in such book shall be contained columns or places for entries to be made of every offence committed by any proprietor or driver or person attending such carriage; and any person may at any reasonable time inspect such book, without fee or reward.’

The object of this section seems clear. It gives the public a right to inspect the register of hackney carriages which must state who the proprietor is, so that, if the public have reason to bring an action for personal injury or otherwise, they may see who the proprietor is who can be sued. By s 43:

‘Every licence so to be granted shall be under the common seal of the commissioners … or … be signed by … the commissioners … and shall be in force for one year only from the day of the date of such licence, or until the next general licensing meeting, in case any general licensing day be appointed by the commissioners.’


Section 44 provides that notice shall be given by the proprietors of hackney carriages of any change of abode. I think s 45 ought to be noted:

‘If the proprietor or part proprietor of any carriage, or any person so concerned as aforesaid, permits the same to be used as a hackney carriage plying for hire within the prescribed distance without having obtained a licence as aforesaid for such carriage, or during the time that such licence is suspended as hereinafter provided, or if any person be found driving, standing, or plying for hire with any carriage within the prescribed distance, for which such licence as aforesaid has not been previously obtained … ’

he shall be liable to a penalty. Contrast these sections with s 46:

‘No person shall act as driver of any hackney carriage licensed in pursuance of this or the special Act to ply for hire within the prescribed distance without first obtaining a licence from the commissioners … ’

In my opinion, the effect of the sections clearly shows that the licence is granted to the carriage and that it remains in force for a year from the time when it is granted or until the next annual licensing meeting of the commissioners. What then is to happen if during that year a change of proprietorship takes place? There is the vehicle, which has its licence attached to it. There is nothing in this Act which provides that the vehicle may not be sold, or may only be sold with the consent of the council. There is no provision here to say that, if a person has obtained a licence for a cab and disposes of it, or dies, he must surrender his licence. What is necessary is that the register should be kept in order and kept up to date. Therefore, it seems to me that, by necessary implication, a person who buys a cab which has been licensed is under a duty to go to the authority and say: “I am now the proprietor of this cab which you licensed for a year. Please, therefore, enter me in the register as the proprietor, and enter my name on the licence granted in respect of the cab, instead of that of the earlier proprietor.” We are not concerned to consider whether or not Parliament might have made different provisions. Parliament seems to have said that a licence to a cab, if the commissioners grant it, is to be given for a year. I cannot think it was meant—and I think the necessary implication is the other way—that, if that cab is sold during the year, the person who buys it is not to be allowed to use it during that year. He may not get his licence renewed, but that raises entirely different questions. Once the licence expires, as it will do, at the end of the year, then he will have to put in a requisition in respect of the cab which he wishes to use as a hackney carriage.
781

In my opinion, the council have viewed this matter from a wrong angle. One of the councillors, I noticed, did raise this question in an acute form at one of the meetings. He said he wanted to be advised whether the licence was to the cab or the man with the cab. Had it been pointed out then, or had this court given a decision then, that the licence attached to the cab and not to the man, I think it is possible that the council might have come to a different conclusion. I think also the council had probably been misled to some extent by the form of the licence which they had been in the habit of issuing. It is to be noted that the section in the statute does not prescribe any particular form of licence, nor, indeed, does it prescribe any particular form of requisition for a licence, Section 40, as I have already said, provides that the requisition is to be in such form as the commissioners shall from time to time provide for that purpose, but the form of licence which is used in the borough of Weymouth reads in this way:

‘We, the corporation of the borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, in the county of Dorset, by virtue of the provisions in that behalf of the Public Health Act, 1875, and all other powers enabling us in that behalf do hereby licence—of Weymouth, the owner of the hackney carriage numbered— to stand and ply for hire with the said carriage, within the said borough, subject to the provisions of the said Acts, and to such by-laws relating to hackney carriages as are, or may from time to time be, in force in the said borough.’

We are also told in a note to the form of licence set out above: “This licence is not transferable.” Merely stated in that way, I think it is right. If a licence is granted in respect of cab A, it cannot be transferred to cab B. That is clear, but what we have to consider is quite a different matter, and that is whether or not, when cab A, which has been licensed, is sold to another owner, that other owner is entitled to have his name substituted for that of the previous owner, and, in my opinion, he clearly is.

Certain other questions have been raised by counsel for the applicants in support of his application for a rule. It is said here that the mandamus ought to go because persons took part in the debate—although they did not vote—who were interested parties. The court does not propose to give any decision on how far the mere fact that persons who were interested took part in the debate would vitiate a decision of the council, if it were otherwise unobjectionable, because we have already said enough to decide this case on different lines, but I think it desirable that the councillors of the borough of Weymouth should be reminded of the express words of the Local Government Act 1933, s 76(1), which says:

‘If a member of a local authority has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or proposed contract or other matter, and is present at a meeting of the local authority at which the contract or other matter is the subject of consideration, he shall at the meeting, as soon as practicable after the commencement thereof, disclose the fact, and shall not take part in the consideration or discussion of, or vote on any question with respect to, the contract or other matter.’

The court observes with concern that two members who did disclose that they had an interest, in that they were, apparently, (or desired to be), competing owners of taxicabs, nevertheless took part in this discussion, one of them taking a very prominent part and using arguments and language which we can only say should be strongly deprecated. The result is that this mandamus will go, with the usual results as to costs.

ATKINSON J. I agree. There is one consideration, however, which I think assists the applicants here, and that is the position of the proprietor who has sold his hackney carriage. He must be entitled to have his name removed from the register, and, I imagine, from the licence which has been granted. If he gave notice to the commissioners, similar to the notice required by s 44, I should have thought that, if they refused to remove his name from the register, he could come here for mandamus to make them do so. That seems to indicate that they must be bound to take notice of changes of ownership and to keep their register accurate in accordance with the true position, and, if the old proprietor has a right to have his name removed, I should have thought it was equally clear that the new proprietor has a right to have his name inserted in place of that of the old proprietor.
782

OLIVER J. I agree with every word that has fallen from my Lords. I only wish to add that I am in the fullest agreement with the strictures which have been passed on the behaviour of two of the councillors concerned in the debate, one of them, in particular, a man openly interested and openly advocating his own financial interest in the debate on a public matter.

Order for mandamus.

Solicitors: Brash, Wheeler, Chambers, Davies & Co agents for Glanvilles, Portsmouth (for the applicants); Sharpe, Pritchard & Co agents for Percy Smallman Town Clerk, Weymouth (for the respondents).