Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:39 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
I think I've posted this before but just in case I havent?

Sheffield City Council v Ali


Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)

Kennedy LJ and Walker J

7 July 2005

Road traffic – Hackney carriage – Private hire vehicle – Licence – Requirement to provide additional information – Misleading wording on form sent to defendant by officer of authority – Whether use of form within delegated power of officer – Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s 57(1).

Section 57(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003, so far as material, provides: 'A district council may require any applicant for a licence … to submit to them such information as they may reasonably consider necessary to enable them to determine whether the licence should be granted and whether conditions should be attached to any such licence.'

The defendant applied to the prosecuting local authority for a licence in relation to a Hackney carriage or private hire vehicle and was sent a form by an officer of the authority to complete with his previous convictions. He was subsequently charged with omitting to provide information required of him under s 57(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. He made a submission of no case to answer before the justices on the basis that it had not been established that the requirement to provide the information had been that of the authority.

He argued that use of the form could not have been within the delegated power of the officer, and relied on the misleading wording of the form as to its nature as a 'statutory declaration'. The justices acceded to that application and the authority appealed by way of case stated.

The appeal would be allowed.

The justices had erred in acceding to the submission of no case to answer. In all the circumstances, it was impossible to say that the officer did not have the authority to require the information sought. Furthermore, the flaws with the form did not deprive the officer of the authority he otherwise had to issue the form, and caused the defendant no prejudice.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group