Taxi Driver Online

Imposition of charges at Heathrow.

R v British Airports Authority ex parte Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Limited; R v British Airports Authority ex parte Poluck

Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List)

HEARING-DATES: 12 March 1986

12 March 1986

COUNSEL:

W Andreae-Jones QC and W Hunter for the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Limited; The Applicant Poluck appeared in person; Christopher SCS Clarke QC and Nicholas Underhill for the British Airports Authority

PANEL: Mann J

JUDGMENTBY-1: MANN J

JUDGMENT-1:

MANN J: There are before me two applications for judicial review. In the first the applicant is the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Limited and in the second the applicant is Mr Gordon Poluck, who is a taxi driver. The respondent in each case is the British Airports Authority. The Association obtained leave to move on 29th November 1985 and Mr Poluck obtained leave to move on 26th November 1985.

In each case the decision to be reviewed is a decision promulgated on 30th July 1985 whereby the respondent decided to charge licensed taxi drivers the sum of 50p for admission to the feeder park at Heathrow Airport.

So far as the Association is concerned, the litigation is of a friendly nature. The relations between the Authority and the Association are good. There is however a difference of opinion as to whether it is lawful to impose the 50p charge.

The system at Heathrow at the moment is that there is a feeder park which can accommodate 375 taxis. It is reached by a slip road known as Nimrod Road. At the slip road there is a hut containing a traffic warden, who indicates to the arriving taxi which group it is to attach itself to in the park. The groups are groups of 10.A sign is in due time given and the group moves forward to that terminal which is for the moment deficient in taxis. The driver is told by another traffic warden at the exit from the feeder park which is that terminal and the driver is given a ticket. The driver then moves to the standing at the terminal to which he is directed.

I am told that that system costs something of the order of £1/2 million a year to run. The Authority have it in mind that those who utilise the facility of the feeder park should pay for it. Hence the introduction of the scheme which is under review.

What would occur under the new system is that the taxi driver would pay 50p to enter the feeder park. He would pay his money to a machine, which would issue a ticket to him. That ticket would be in two parts. Once within the feeder park, matters would proceed as before, and on the sign the driver would move forward. At the exit from the feeder park he would find another machine into which he will insert his ticket, which would then punch an indication of the terminal which was at that moment deficient in taxis. The driver would then move forward to that terminal. In due time he would surrender one part of the ticket and retain the other for VAT purposes.

The new scheme was due to become operative in November 1985, but has been suspended pending the outcome of these proceedings.

The British Airports Authority is a statutory Corporation, which currently owes its existence to the Airports Authority Act 1975. Section 1(1) of that Act says: "There shall continue to be a body corporate called the British Airports Authority . . . which shall manage the aerodromes at", amongst other places, Heathrow.

The Authority's functions are set out in section 2. I read the first three subsections:

"(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to provide at the aerodromes such services and facilities as are in its opinion necessary or desirable for their operation, but the Authority shall not provide any navigation services except with the consent in writing of the Secretary of State.

(2) In carrying out that duty the Authority shall have regard to the development of air transport and to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.

(3) The Authority shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its duties under this Act or of any duty imposed on it by virtue of section 78 or 79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982."

The Authority's financial duties are set out in familiar form in section 3: "The Authority shall so conduct its business as to secure that its revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another."

I must refer finally to section 9 of the Act, which is in a part of the Act headed "Control and management of aerodromes". The section itself has the shoulder-note "Byelaws" and subsection (1) reads: "The Authority may, in respect of any aerodrome owned or managed by it, make byelaws for regulating the use and operation of the aerodrome and the conduct of all persons while within the aerodrome, and in particular byelaws . . . (b) for preventing obstruction within the aerodrome; (c) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the aerodrome except on roads therein to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles therein and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws; (d) for prohibiting waiting by hackney carriages except as standings appointed by the Authority; . . .".

Byelaws have in fact been made. They are called "The Heathrow Airport -- London Byelaws, 1983". Byelaw 9 deals with taxis and is sub-divided into 14 components. Component (12) reads as follows: "Taxi drivers who are for the time being in a taxi feeder park shall (a) leave the taxi feeder park by an exit for the time being designated for that purpose and in the order in which they entered immediately they are required to do so by a constable, traffic warden in uniform or the Authority in order to fill vacancies as soon as they occur on an authorised standing and (b) accept such ticket or other token specifying the authorised standing to which they shall proceed as may be given to them by a constable, traffic warden in uniform or the Authority . . ."

Those are the material provisions.

The issue has narrowed to a very small one indeed. It is accepted that the Authority do have power to levy a charge. The route to the power to levy a charge is through section 2(1) and section 2(3), on the basis that the Authority can form the opinion that a feeder park is necessary or desirable and that they can levy charges for the use of the feeder park by way of their power "to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of . . . duties" under the Act.

What is said is that the use of the power to charge would be inconsistent with the Byelaw code and that the Authority having promulgated a code in regard to taxis can only exercise its power to levy a charge by an amendment to the code. Lest it be thought that that appears somewhat sterile, it is important in this sense that an amendment to Byelaws would require the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport, to whom the Association would have an opportunity of making representations. It is accepted, and in my judgment is plainly the case, that a charge could be levied without a byelaw. But again it is said that having regard to the promulgation of the code, it could be done now only by means of an amendment to byelaws.

It is to be observed that the function of the Byelaws was described by Lord Justice Shaw in Cinnamond v British Airports Authority [1980] 2 All ER 368, [1980] 1 WLR 582 in these terms: "Section 9 which confers a power to make byelaws adds sanctions to the powers of management and administration set out in the earlier sections."

Turning then to the very narrow point, is there an obligation to promulgate by means of an amendment to the code? In my judgment there is not. I can see no reason at all why a specification of charges should be dealt with in the Byelaws. Is however the imposition of the charge inconsistent with these Byelaws? It was suggested it was. My attention was particularly drawn to component (12)(b).

It is to be noted that (12)(b) applies only to taxi drivers who are for the time being in a taxi feeder park. The proposal in this case is to charge for access to the park. It is therefore, in my judgment, impossible to see any inconsistency between the criminal obligation imposed by component (12) and the proposal to charge 50p for admission.

It was said, somewhat faintly, that the requirement in (12)(b) about "accepting such ticket or other token specifying authorised standing to which they should proceed as may be given to them by a constable, traffic warden in uniform or the Authority" could not be satisfied. The regime I have indicated requires a machine at the end to return the inscribed ticket which was obtained on entrance. That, in my view, is a sufficient "giving" by the Authority for the purposes of (12)(b).


So far as the Association's case is concerned, I conclude (1) there is power to charge and (2) it does not have to be exercised through the mechanism of Byelaws and (3) that there is no inconsistency between what is proposed and the criminal obligations imposed by the existing Byelaws. The Association's application is therefore dismissed.

Mr Poluck who appeared in person and who speaks with personal knowledge of what occurs at Heathrow, took eleven points, but really I cannot, with respect to him, see that they bear upon the narrow point as to whether or not there is power to charge. He drew my attention to the special position of hackney carriage drivers under the legislation. He drew my attention to the London Cab and Stage Act 1907 and the suppression of discriminatory practices at railway stations. He said it would be unfair to inflict this surcharge upon cab drivers because the Secretary of State would not allow them to recover it from their customers, and he expressed surprise at the sum of money which the Authority say the conduct of the feeder parks cost.

I am afraid I cannot see any of Mr Poluck's points as bearing upon the issue before the Court and his application also fails.

DISPOSITION:
Application dismissed

SOLICITORS:
AJ Adams & Adams, Hemel Hempstead; Knapp Fishers