Taxi Driver Online

Chorley Borough Council v Thomas

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
MAURICE KAY J
17 July 2001
[2001] All ER (D) 210 (Jul)

Road traffic – Hackney carriage – Plying for hire – Mini-cab – Mini-cab parked outside public house – Member of public asking whether cab free – Driver confirming cab free and asking for destination – Driver telling passenger fare – Driver contacting base by radio and booking journey – Whether prima facie case of plying for hire – Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s 45.

The respondent, T, drove a vehicle that was licensed and marked as a private hire vehicle. The vehicle was stationary, just off the main road outside a public house and near a restaurant. T was approached by L, who asked whether T was free. T said that he was and L entered the vehicle. T then asked L for his name and where he was going. He then informed L of the fare that would be charged. Before the journey commenced, T contacted his control base by radio to book the journey. The vehicle did not enter onto the main road until the booking was completed. At the end of the journey, L paid the fare and T drove off.

T was charged with plying for hire without a hackney carriage licence, contrary to s 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, as amended. At trial before the district judge, T submitted at the close of the prosecution case that there was no case to answer. The prosecution contended that the above facts gave rise to a prima facie case of plying for hire in that the presence of the car amounted to an invitation to treat and the later contractual offer of the fare was irrelevant.

The district judge found that there was no evidence of how long the vehicle had been stationary, that the booking had been made immediately after L had entered the vehicle, and that the journey had taken place after the booking. He concluded that in those circumstances, there was no evidence that T had been plying for hire. The district judge therefore acceded to the submission of no case to answer and dismissed the information.

The prosecution appealed by way of case stated. The question for the opinion of the High Court was whether the driver of a marked mini-cab, whose vehicle was not a licensed hackney carriage, was plying for hire if he, without more, was asked by a member of public if his vehicle was free and, having indicated that it was and received details of the prospective journey and disclosed a price for it, placed a booking with his base before the journey started.

The appeal would be allowed.

In the circumstances of the instant case, the reasons given by the district judge for finding that there was no case to answer indicated that he was influenced by matters that were irrelevant to the issue of plying for hire in the circumstances of the instant case. That which took place after T had informed L of the fare, whether it amounted to a booking via the taxi base or confirmation of a booking taken at the scene, was not relevant to the question of whether a prima facie case had been made out.

Accordingly, as the trial had not reached a conclusion, the question would be answered in the affirmative, but with the rider that what was being decided was that, without more, there was a case to answer.

Nottingham City Council v Wooding [1994] RTR 72, Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd [1962] 2 All ER 801, Cogley v Sherwood [1959] 2 All ER 313 and Sales v Lake [1922] 1 KB 553 considered.

Martin Carter (instructed by Richard Townson, Chorley) for the authority.
Ian Ponter (instructed by Allansons, Bolton) for T.