Taxi Driver Online

While we are on a London theme here is a case where the commisioner got it wrong.

R. v Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Ex p. Howell
(CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
c.1986

[1986] R.T.R. 52

Summary

Abstract: A decision not to a renew a taxi driver's licence on the ground that he is medically unfit made on the basis of medical evidence that is not disclosed to the driver and without giving the driver an opportunity to make representations is made in breach of the rules of natural justice and liable to be quashed in proceedings for judicial review.

H was a London taxi driver who had held a cab-driver's licence for 12 years. In 1983 H reached 50 years of age. It was the practice of the Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to require a taxi driver to produce a suitable medical report on his fitness to drive a taxi cab.

The London Cab Order 1934 gave the Assistant Commissioner a discretion to refuse to renew a licence if the applicant failed to satisfy him that he was fit to act as a cab driver. H was examined by C, his own doctor. C completed the Assistant Commissioner's standard form of medical report and certified H fit to drive. C mentioned on the form that H had an epileptic fit in 1979 which was investigated by Lewisham Hospital with inconclusive results.

The Assistant Commissioner required H to be examined by K, another doctor. K contacted Lewisham Hospital and was informed that the hospital notes relating to the 1979 incident were scanty. The notes recorded that he had passed out whilst sitting next to a gas fire. The hospital stated that he had three similar attacks previously and diagnosed epilepsy. K concluded that there was evidence H had suffered from epilepsy but was not at that time suffering from the disease.

Subsequently H was informed that his application for a renewal of his licence was refused on the ground that he could no longer be considered to meet the required medical standard for a taxi cab driver's licence. H was not given a copy of K's report nor advised of its contents.

He was not given the opportunity to make representations about the prospective refusal of his application to renew his licence. H contended that he had not been diagnosed epileptic, that he had passed out in consequence of fumes from the gas fire in 1979 and that although he had passed out on two previous occasions, in neither case had epilepsy been diagnosed. H sought judicial review of the Assistant Commissioner's decision. His application was refused. H appealed.

Summary: Held, allowing the appeal, that C having certified H to be fit to hold a cab driver's licence H had a legitimate expectation that the licence would be granted. When his licence was not renewed H had a justifiable grievance in that the adverse factors in K's report were not communicated to him, nor was he given an opportunity to make any representations regarding those factors.

The decision to refuse to renew H's licence was based on a hearing diagnosis of an earlier complaint of which the hospital notes were scanty and the accuracy of the past recorded history was disputed. There was
evidence from C and K that H was at the present time fit to drive. The decision made effectively deprived H of his livelihood. The decision-making process was defective and unfair.

The decision not to renew H's licence would be quashed (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374 considered).

....................................................................................................