Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:24 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Greyhound v Lambert
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:33 pm
Posts: 120
322 KING'S BENCH DIVISION. [1928]
1927 GREYHOUND MOTORS, LIMITED (APPELLANTS) V.
0ct-27- LAMBERT (RESPONDENT).
Local Government—Stage Carriage— Motor Coach—" Plying for hire "—
" Antecedent" Contract of Carriage—Tickets bought ten Minutes before
Arrival of Omnibus at intermediate Booking Office—But after Beginning
of Journey — Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869 (32 d. 33 Vict.
c. 115), s. 7.

A motor coach which belonged to the appellants and carried passengers between London and Bristol, but was not licensed to ply for hire in the Metropolitan Police District, picked up at certain points within the Metropolitan Police District passengers who, before the arrival of the coach at those points, but after its departure from the place where it began its journey, had obtained tickets entitling them to travel to destinations outside the Metropolitan Police District. The appellants had exhibited posters in which it was stated that passengers entering a coach in London must obtain tickets at least ten minutes before the arrival of the coach at the booking office:— Held, that, as the appellants clearly had contemplated that the coach might start on its journey with vacant seats all or some of which might be filled within the Metropolitan Police District by persons who had not taken tickets before its departure on its journey, it was plying for hire within the Metropolitan Police District within s. 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, which imposes a penalty on the owner of an unlicensed stage carriage which plies for hire.

Per Salter J. The appellants solicited passengers partly by the posters (which contained time-tables and fares as well as the notice referred to) and partly by the fact that their coaches were seen to pass along the route every day at fixed times.
Sales v. Lake [1922] 1 K. B. 653 distinguished.
Case stated by a Metropolitan police magistrate.
At a court of summary jurisdiction sitting at West London Police Court an information was laid by the respondent, a Metropolitan police sergeant, against the appellants, alleging that they were on May 26, 1927, the owners of a stage carriage, to wit, a motor omnibus, found plying for hire between Hammersmith Road and Cranford Bridge, within the Metropolitan Police District, such carriage not being licensed to ply for hire within the limits of the district, contrary to s. 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 115).
Upon the hearing of the information the following facts were proved or admitted :—
The appellants were the owners of a large number of motor coaches which carried passengers between London and Bristol.
They maintained branch offices at 229 Hammersmith Road ; 1927 at the Clarendon Restaurant, Hammersmith; and at Hounslow ; all being within the Metropolitan Police District.
On May 26, 1927, there was exhibited in the window of the office at 229 Hammersmith Road a poster, in. which notice was given that London passengers must have obtained tickets ten minutes before the omnibus arrived at the booking office. The poster also contained a list of places on the road from Bristol to Hammersmith and a list of places on the road from Hammersmith to Bristol giving the times at which a motor omnibus belonging to the appellants was expected to arrive at and to depart from them. Certain fares which related to somewhat longer journeys than any within the Metropolitan Police District were specifically stated, but there was added in conspicuous type the information that there were " intermediate fares to all stages between Bristol and London at pro rata rates."
At 8.30 A.M. on May 26, 1927, P.-S. Lockyer obtained at the office at 229 Hammersmith Road a ticket entitling him to travel to Slough, a place outside the Metropolitan Police District, for which he paid Is. 9d. At the time when he obtained the ticket there was no motor coach present belonging to the appellants. At 8.54 A.M. on the same day a motor coach belonging to the appellants drew up outside
the office, was entered by P.-S. Lockyer and one other passenger, and drove off. The motor coach was driven to the Clarendon Restaurant, where three other passengers entered it. It started from the Clarendon Restaurant at 8.59 A.M., and was driven to Hounslow, stopping on the way at High Road, Chiswick, and High Street, Brentford, at neither of which places did any other passengers board it.
At 9.10 A.M. on the same day the respondent and another police officer, P.-S. Bryant, obtained at the appellants' office at Hounslow tickets entitling them to travel from Hounslow to Maidenhead, a place outside the Metropolitan Police District, for which they paid Is. 9d. At the time when the last mentioned tickets were obtained the motor coach had not arrived at Hounslow. At 9.30 A.M. on the same day
the motor coach, with P.-S. Lockyer and the other four passengers in it , arrived at Hounslow, and was entered by, the respondent, by P.-S. Bryant and by two other passengers, after which it continued its journey to Slough.
At Colnbrook, between Hounslow and Slough, the respondent informed the driver and the conductor that P.-S. Lockyer, P.-S. Bryant and himself were police officers, and left the motor coach, which continued its journey.
The motor coach was not licensed to ply for hire within the Metropolitan Police District.
The appellants called no evidence, but it was stated on their behalf, and the magistrate accepted the statement, that all their offices were in telephonic communication, and if bookings were insufficient a journey would be cancelled.
On the part of the respondent it was contended that the above facts constituted a plying for hire by the motor coach within the limits of the Metropolitan Police District.
On the part of the appellants it was contended that, as there had been no soliciting of or waiting for passengers, but an antecedent contract of carriage in each case, there had been no plying for hire within the limits of the district.
The magistrate was of opinion that there had been solicitation of passengers both before and after the motor coach left the office, 229 Hammersmith Road, by means of posters, and that there were no real antecedent contracts of carriage in respect of the police officers who bought tickets and boarded the coach soon after on its arrival at the two stopping places mentioned en route for Bristol. He held that there had been a plying for hire within the Metropolitan Police District, and he accordingly convicted the appellants, imposed on them a fine of 5s., and ordered them to pay three guineas costs.
The appellants, being dissatisfied with this determination as being erroneous in point of law, applied to the magistrate to state a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of his decision for the opinion of the Court whether he had come to a correct decision.
Paley Scott for the appellants. There was no plying for 1927 hire by the appellants' motor coach within s. 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869. "Plying for hire " connotes solicitation by the presence of a vehicle of the public to enter it and take a seat if one is available. " The carriage itself should be exhibited " : per Channell J . in Cavill v. Amos. (1) The vehicle must be ready to be entered by any person who sees it and desires to travel by it, and in those circumstances the mere interposition of the formality of getting a ticket between the solicitation of the passenger by the presence of the vehicle and the passenger's entering it will not prevent its plying for hire. But those circumstances are not present in this case, which is thus distinguishable from Foinett v. Clark. (2) " There must be a general invitation by the person in charge of the vehicle to members of the public to make contracts with him for carriage in the vehicle": per Salter J. in Leonard v. Western Services, Ld. (3) The only distinction between that case—in which a vehicle was held not to be " plying for hire " because a passenger who had a return ticket entered it—and the present matter is that here the appellants invited the public by posters to take tickets. To constitute "plying for hire" "there must be a soliciting or waiting to secure passengers by the driver or other person in control without any previous contract
with them" : per Lord Trevethin C.J. in Sales v. Lake (4); by which decision, it is submitted, the present case is concluded, since the passengers here bought tickets for the journey which they required before the arrival of the motor coach at that particular point. The appellants did not solicit the public with the coach ; they merely held out by posters a promise that there would be a coach at certain places at certain times if sufficient passengers presented themselves. All the seats in the coach were numbered and were allotted to the various passengers, and only those persons who held tickets which they had previously obtained were allowed to enter the coach. The magistrate confused solicitation by the posters with plying for hire.
Roome for the respondent. The fundamental distinction between the present case and Sales v. Lake (1) is that in that case the seats in the charabanc were all " booked " before it started on its journey—before even it was hired by the persons who sold the tickets. That was a vital consideration in the minds of the Court:
see per Lord Trevethin C.J. (2)
In the present case the coach started on its journey from 229 Hammersmith Road, and while it was actually in transit to Hounslow passengers at Hounslow were " booking " seats in it.
As was said by Lord Hewart C.J. in Armstrong v. Ogle (3) :
' " When this particular omnibus set out upon its journey all the driver of it knew about the persons he was to collect and pick up . . . . was that they were to belong to a large, unknown, indeterminate class of persons who happened to possess . . . . tickets, and to whom, if they attracted his attention, he was to offer a place in his omnibus." Lord Hewart C.J. added : " If that is not picking up passengers, I do not know what is Here there was not a private hiring ; there was a public and general service."
[He was stopped.]
Paley Scott replied.
LORD HEWART C.J. The real contention of the appellants both in this Court and in the Court below was that the present case is covered by Sales v. Lake. (1) A comparison between that case and the present, however, shows what so often appears—namely, how exceedingly misleading a phrase may be if its meaning is not examined. The phrase here which seems to have become a catchword is " antecedent contract."
Antecedent to what? In Sales v. Lake(l) the passengers bought their tickets before the time of the departure of the vehicle. Indeed, it was not until after the number of
passengers had been ascertained that the respondents in that case.hired the vehicle. The magistrate found expressly that there was no plying for hire, because no member of the public 1927 could have obtained a seat in the vehicle at any of the places where the passengers were picked up unless he had bought a ticket elsewhere before the starting of the vehicle. In giving judgment Lord Trevethin C.J. said (1) : "If there had been any empty seats for which the driver was prepared to take in casual passengers, I think he would have been plying for hire, but the magistrate's finding negatives this suggestion." In my opinion, that case was the very opposite of the present case. Here there are contemplated four different starting points within the Metropolitan Police District. The vehicle starts from 229 Hammersmith Road at 9 A.M. It leaves Brentford at 9.20, Hounslow at 9.30, and Colnbrook at 9.55. What is its true aspect in the eye of the law when it starts from 229 Hammersmith Road ? Non constat that at that moment it has any passengers at all. Obviously it is contemplated that it may start with vacant places all or some of which may be filled at Brentford, Hounslow, or Colnbrook by persons who not only have not reserved accommodation before 9 o'clock, but may not even have
made up their minds to take the journey that day until, in the case of those joining the vehicle at Colnbrook, nearly10 o'clock, when it has accomplished a part of its journey, which occupies something like three-quarters of an hour. Stress has been laid on the fact that here the passengers had to obtain a ticket from an office and not from any one on the vehicle. That seems to me to be quite immaterial for the reasons explained in Foinett v. Clark. (2) In my opinion the magistrate had ample evidence to justify him in coming to the conclusion to which he did, and therefore this appeal must be dismissed.
AVORY J. I am of the same opinion. The importance of this case from the public point of view is that if vehicles such as this are not licensed they may start on their journeys in quite an unfit condition and may be driven by incompetent persons. That being so, it is obvious that the Court ought not to differ with the magistrate, unless the case is governed by Sales v Lake (1) As my Lord has pointed out the essential difference between the present case and Sales v. Lake (1) is to be found in the facts. The vehicle there started for Brighton from Charing Cross, and, although it picked up passengers en route at Grosvenor Gardens, Vauxhall Bridge Road and other places, no passenger was accepted at any stopping place except those who had obtained tickets before the vehicle started from Charing Cross. In other words, the passengers who were picked up had made contracts to be carried for the journey before the vehicle started from Charing Cross. In fact, they made these contracts before the vehicle was hired. The magistrate expressly held that there was no plying for hire at Grosvenor Gardens, because no member of the public could have obtained a seat in the vehicle at that stopping place unless he had previously bought a ticket elsewhere. The judgment of Lord Trevethin is based on the same ground. He said (2): " The information in the present case charged that the driver was plying for hire while he was in Grosvenor Gardens. The learned magistrate has however found that when the carriage was in Grosvenor Gardens no member of the public could have obtained a seat in the vehicle for that journey who had not previously booked his ticket elsewhere. That is to say the process of soliciting was then over and the driver was merely receiving passengers who had already booked their seats. On this ground alone in my judgment the magistrate was right in refusing to convict." That being the distinction between the present case and Sales v. Lake (1) I have no hesitation in saying that we cannot differ from the finding of the magistrate, and that therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
SALTER J. I am of the same opinion. The vehicle in question in this case carried passengers between Bristol and London and London and Bristol, following an ascertained route and travelling by fixed stages, which were notified to the public by posters and by the tickets supplied to passengers. The starting point in London was the appellants' office at 229 Hammersmith Road. The journey to Brentford occupied twenty minutes and that to Hounslow thirty minutes. If when the vehicle started from Hammersmith Road there were any vacant seats—and there might or might not be—any member of the public who had come to the stopping place at Brentford or Hounslow could obtain a ticket to journey to any of the stages towards Bristol, provided he got it ten minutes before the arrival of the vehicle to take him up. On these facts the case seems to me plainly to fall within the two conditions which must exist to constitute plying for hire, and which were applied by Lord Trevethin C.J.
In Sales v. Lake (1), when he said : " There must be a soliciting or waiting to secure passengers by the driver or other person in control without any previous contract with them." The soliciting here would be partly by the posters and partly by the fact that this vehicle was seen and known to pass along the route every day at fixed times. Lord Trevethin goes on to say that the test is that " the owner or person in control who is engaged in or authorizes the soliciting or waiting must be in possession of a carriage for which he is soliciting or waiting to obtain passengers." Here any one who pleased might travel by this vehicle. The distinction between the present case and Sales v. Lake (I) has already been pointed out. In that case the driver of the vehicle was told to pick up at various points suitable to them the particular persons who had previously taken tickets, and he was not authorized to pick up any other persons, and he did not do so. In my opinion the magistrate in the present case was right in holding that the appellants' motor coach was plying for hire in the Metropolitan Police District, and this appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for appellants : Colder Woods do Sandiford, for
F. E. Metcalfe, Bristol.
Solicitors for respondent: Wontner do Sons.
(1) [1922] 1 K. B. 553, 557.
G. F. L. B.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Greyhound v Lambert
PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 2310
An interesting case from an earlier era, but I'm trying to work out what relevance this has to the taxi trade. Maybe it proves what is considered "plying for hire", "soliciting" etc.

These days it is acceptable for a vehicle displaying a public service vehicle operators licence to ply for hire (PCJAct). However, if it is running a regular service, that service needs to be registered either as a local bus service (route under 50km long) or an express service. PSVs can sit by the road and in effect tout for business. There used to be loads of coaches at Brighton touting for tours to Devils Dyke, Beachy Head and the like. More recently it was brought to my attention that PSV minibuses were meeting cruise ships at Dover offering passengers trips into the town, the castle and further afield. Obviously the Dover hacks were a bit peeved, but the minibus operators were doing nothing wrong. they were not running regular services, so the routes did not need to be registered.

Many years ago I read an similarly ancient case from about 1932 on what was a "fare". It was deemed that tips given freely to the driver could not be classed as fares in a similar "plying for hire" case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Greyhound v Lambert
PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 42904
Location: 1066 Country
roythebus wrote:
Maybe it proves what is considered "plying for hire", "soliciting" etc.


Image

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group