gusmac wrote:
Do we have a short version?
1. The core issue in this case is whether the defendant, First Greater Western Limited ("FGW") - as the private lessee and station franchise operator of railway premises, namely Bristol Temple Meads ("BTM"), within which are located Hackney Carriage stands fixed by local byelaws ("the taxi byelaws") - is lawfully entitled to introduce and enforce a permit scheme.
Conclusions
430. The claim therefore fails on all grounds. The permit scheme is lawful and justified. It is enforceable by injunction.
431. It is therefore not necessarily for me to consider the taxi drivers' claim for compensation for the period, in respect of which those who had no permit were denied access to BTM, until the undertakings were given to the court to pay into court an equivalent fee, if they wished to trade from BTM. At the outset of the trial, the parties had agreed that the assessment of any damages would be referred to a District Judge. That will not happen as the claimants' claims are dismissed
Is that short enough for you
Login
Register
FAQ
