Taxi Driver Online

Here's a case regarding section 16 you won't readily find available but it covers an awful lot of ground pre Cameron and post Nolan.

R v Salisbury District Council ex parte Pickett

Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List)

HEARING-DATES: 27 July 1988

27 July 1988

COUNSEL:
S Trimmer for the Applicant; I Mayes for the Respondent

PANEL: Otton J

JUDGMENTBY-1: OTTON J

JUDGMENT-1:
OTTON J: This is an application by Peter Douglas Pickett, a hackney carriage proprietor, who seeks judicial review of a decision of the Salisbury District Council taken on 18 August 1987 no longer to restrict the number of hackney carriage licences. This resolution seriously affected the applicant and other holders of existing licences.

The historical statutory background is now well established from previous decisions relating to similar applications. It can thus be stated briefly.

Prior to the statutory provisions now in force, Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 provided so far as is relevant, "The Commissioners," ie the licensing authority, "may from time to time license to ply for hire such number of hackney coaches or carriages as they think fit." By virtue of this provision, licensing authorities in general had a policy of limiting the number of licences which they could issue based, no doubt, upon their assessment of the need or demand within their licensing area.

The Transport Act of 1985 made a profound and radical change. The manifest policy of the Act is to remove restraints and to allow free market forces to take their course. Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 is an amending provision to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and provides so far as relevant: "The provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages . . . shall have effect (a) as if in Section 37, the words 'such number of' and 'as they think fit' were omitted; and (b) as if they," -- that is, all the provisions of the Act with respect to hackney carriages -- "provided that the grant of a licence may be refused, for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted, if, but only if, the person authorised to grant licences is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet."

The effect of the amendment to (b) is to transform the permissive "may" into a partially mandatory "must." Unless the authority is satisfied there is no significant demand which is unmet, it is obliged to issue a licence to an otherwise suitable applicant. It also has the effect that an authority can adopt a policy of no numerical restriction of licences. The District Council of Salisbury is the relevant authority with power to license hackney carriages within the City and District of Salisbury. The Amenities and Tourism Committee ("the Committee") is the body delegated to exercise the functions of the Council in this respect.

The applicant, Peter Douglas Pickett, has been a registered hackney carriage driver and proprietor operating in and around the City of Salisbury since 1974. From 1975 until 1981, he was the Secretary of the Sarum Taxi Association and from 1981 until 1985, he was Chairman of the Salisbury and District Associated Taxis. He describes himself as a committee member and the authorised negotiator for the Salisbury and Amesbury Taxi Proprietors Association. This body can be conveniently described as the taxi drivers' lobby, which started to organise itself and look after the interests of its members when they realised the implications of the 1985 Act which came to force on the 6 January, 1986.

On 4th February, the Committee met to discuss the effect of the Act and it had before it a report prepared by Mr Frank Holder, the Assistant Clerk to the Council. As a part of their usual policy of consulting with the taxi drivers, the Committee sent a copy of the report to the taxi drivers' representative body before it was submitted to the committee for their consideration. The taxi drivers were perturbed by a suggestion in the report that there should be an increase of 50 percent in the number of carriage plates issued by the Council.

It is to be noted in light of subsequent developments that paragraph 5.1 of the report accurately and succinctly set out for the Committee the effect of Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 and states in terms as follows: "Under this Section a district council may only refuse an application for a licence in order to limit the number of taxis if, but only if, it is satisfied there is no significant unmet demand for taxi services within the area to which the licence would apply. An applicant whose licence is refused has a right of appeal to the Crown Court."

Upon receipt of this report, the Salisbury and District Associated Taxis instructed solicitors, Messrs Wilsons, who promptly wrote at length to Mr Holder on 31st January 1986. The solicitors stated that in their opinion in spite of the apparently powerful fetters placed upon the Council's ability to exercise its discretion under Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985, there remained an obligation upon the Council to assess the assertion of existing taxi licence holders that the demand was already catered for.

I quote from the letter: "However, once evidence has been put before the council by or on behalf of our clients which supports that assertion, we would submit that the Council has a duty to examine that evidence and, as is suggested in the following sentence of the Circular, to conduct its own investigations into the question of whether there is significant unmet demand for taxis in the area." Copies of the letter were sent to Mr Magrath, the Chairman, and Mr Lodge, the Vice Chairman of the committee.

About this time, Mr Pickett saw Mr Magrath at his home and put all the points to him and they had, I quote: "a very helpful conversation about the best way forward." Mr Pickett has been a life-long and personal friend of Mr Lodge and they, no doubt, discussed the situation also.

At the meeting of 4th February, representatives of the taxi drivers were present. A number of councillors expressed the view that there was no unsatisfied demand. It was resolved to consider the question of restriction at their next meeting set for 15 April 1986 and that in the meantime there was to be consultation with the taxi drivers.

The taxi drivers by this time were a highly organised body and pursued a vigorous policy of canvassing and collecting evidence to support their contention that there was no unmet demand. Paragraph 11 of Mr Pickett's affidavit states as follows: "Every effort was made to lobby support for the idea of as wide a gathering of views and evidence of local demand as possible. Every committee member was lobbied and many other Councillors who were not on the committee were seen as well."

On 26 March 1986 Messrs Wilsons wrote to the chief executive setting out their clients' detailed submission. Appendix 1 set out representative earnings of the taxi proprietors, and Appendix 2 is a schedule showing the number of taxis working in the city from the New Canal Rank. The solicitors expressed the view that: "Once evidence has been put before the Council which prima facie indicates that there is no significant demand in the area for the services of Hackney Carriages which is unmet, the Council is not entitled to proceed with the issue of additional licences unless and until it has obtained further information sufficient to rebut that prima facie evidence.

We submit that if Council were to take such action it would be open to our clients to apply to the Court for judicial review."

However, the then Chief Executive advised the Committee that this argument was incorrect since the Transport Act 1985 did not oblige but only permitted the refusal of the licence where there was insufficient evidence of unmet demand. Mr Rawlinson, the new Chief Executive, also wrote a long report for the benefit of the members of the committee. He set out the possible courses open to it.

At paragraph 3, he stated as follows:

"3.1 The following options are open to the Council: -- (a) Limit the number of taxis as at present. This option is not recommended because if an applicant whose licence is refused appeals to the Crown Court, the Council would not be able to provide evidence that demand for taxis has been met and consequently could be liable for substantial legal costs.

(b) Commission a survey to determine the number of taxi licences that should be issued to meet demand. This option would not necessarily provide a watertight defence for restricting the number of taxis but should be pursued if the Council wishes to continue quantity control.

(c) Discontinue quantity control. This option should be adopted unless it can be proved that the demand for taxis has been met.

(d) Grant a proportion of applications, deferring consideration of the remainder until the effect of this action can be assessed. This option is based on advice contained in Circular 3/85 but in the event of an appeal against a refusal of an application being considered by the Court it is unlikely that the Court would consider the Circular guidelines as sufficient reason for the Council refusing the application -- the Court would require evidence as to whether or not the demand for taxis has been met. The consequence of not providing the necessary evidence could mean the Council incurs substantial legal costs."

When the Council met on 15th April, Mr Pickett claims that almost every taxi driver in Salisbury and Amesbury attended and the room was packed. The committee, in spite of the advice given by their Chief Executive, rejected option (c) and resolved not to issue any further licences at present, to consult the Parish Councils and Transport Groups within the district as to the demand for taxi services within their area, and to consider the issue further on 12 August 1986.

There was then a great deal of activity. The Parish Councils responded, and the taxi drivers redoubled their efforts. Mr Pickett says in paragraph 12: "Although no one actually complained I can well imagine that some of the Councillors and officials were absolutely fed-up with our attention! We simply never stopped putting our case and to their great credit the Councillors never stopped listening and being very helpful particularly in suggesting people to see and information which would be useful to them."

A summary of the responses received from the Parish Councils was included in the members' briefing materials for the meeting in August from which there was evidence of unmet demand in some outlying districts. Also included was a paper from the Association of District Councils. This referred to "the difficult task of assessing whether there was a significant demand for the services of the taxis which was unmet," and suggested that interested Councils should co-operate in a joint study to consider a "way forward for those authorities who wished to retain some control over the number of taxi licences but are faced with difficulties in doing so without the risk of successful challenge."

At the meeting of 12 August 1986 many of the taxi drivers again turned out. The respondent's affidavit recalls, "While there was no disorder, the muttering which greeted any suggestion with which they did not agree made the atmosphere unpleasant. The result was that the committee adopted Resolution 952: "That consideration of the (policy of restricting the number of taxis licenced in the District) be deferred pending the outcome of the research," commissioned by the Department of Transport on the theoretical and practical problems of measuring unmet demand for the services of taxis.

It is to be noted that no time limit was included in the resolution, but it was understood that the research would probably take up to 18 months or even two years to compile. The effect of the resolution coupled with the resolution of 5th April meant or was taken by the taxi drivers to mean that the committee would grant no further licences and would defer any further reconsideration of the matter until the results of the outcome of research was to hand.

The tax drivers were confident that there was already enough evidence of no unmet demand and the matter could only and would only be re-opened when further research was to hand. Based on these assumptions, their reaction was, if not ecstatic, certainly self-congratulatory.

Mr Pickett says in paragraph 14 of his affidavit, "We were absolutely delighted. We had a meeting in the car park of all the drivers, each of whom had attended the crucial committee meeting and I, as the negotiator explained exactly what had happened and what it meant. I, and the rest of the committee, was absolutely certain, 100 percent certain or more if that was possible, that we had won.

The Council had decided to restrict and would not reconsider for at least 15 months which was when, in effect, the Department of Transport research could first be to hand. I said it might not come up for 2 years (that was the bracket given by Mr Holder to the committee). We were delighted, doing handstands in fact. We were absolutely certain that the status quo had been preserved and would remain for at least that length of time. We were reinforced in that view when we had sight of the letter to our solicitors," dated 26th August.

Understandably, the taxi drivers' campaign was wound down. As Mr Pickett said: "There was no point in going on and indeed had we carried on canvassing the impact would have been lost the next time the issue became a live one. We were reinforced in all this by the odd remark which was made to us by Councillors who were seen on the street or picked up in our cabs to the effect that, 'you've won the war and I'm very pleased you have'."

The events of August 1986 to August 1987. During the succeeding 12 months, there were a number of developments which caused the Committee to reconsider the situation. In December 1986, the Committee was informed that Mr GA Sanger, a Licence Holder Trading as G & A Taxis, had applied for four further mini bus licences. The Committee refused Mr Sanger's application but he appealed to Salisbury Crown Court.

Prior to the hearing of the appeal, the Council advised the Committee that as they were unable to produce satisfactory evidence of no unmet demand, Mr Sanger's appeal was bound to succeed. The Council therefore agreed to an order that he should have his licences on negotiated terms. The granting of these licences prompted a further letter from Messrs Wilsons dated 22 May, pointing out that the existing taxi drivers saw Mr Sanger's licences as a source of unfair competition.

Secondly, during the summer of 1987, a series of decisions in the High Court interpreting Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 was brought to the attention of the Council. Members were particularly concerned by the decision of Mr Justice Nolan in this Court in R v Reading Borough Council Ex Parte Egan and Sullman. This decision suggested that the postponement of the de-regulation of licences implicit in the August 1986 resolution was unlawful since the Council was not empowered to delay the issue of further licences to suitable applicants after 6 January 1986 unless it was satisfied that no unmet demand existed and that the Act did not empower the Council to delay the issuance of licences pending the outcome of market research.

Thirdly, a further application for an additional licence was made by Mr Trollope on 22nd June. He wished to operate a mini bus service but was not prepared to agree to the restrictions which had been accepted by Mr Sanger. The matter was referred to the meeting of the Committee on 18 August 1987 when it was to be taken as confidential business because it concerned Mr Trollope's private affairs.

Mr Lodge at paragraph 29 of his affidavit recalls as follows: "Discussion at the meeting . . . ranged wider than Mr Trollope's application. Members discussed (a) the difficulty of justifying the Committee's past policy, and particularly Resolution 952, in the light of the Reading decision; (b) the fact that the Council had lost de facto control of the issue of licences, since in the absence of any evidence of no unmet demand it was impossible to resist any applicant's appeal to the Crown Court; so that, as a result, the waiting list procedure could be circumvented by any applicant who was prepared to appeal; (c) the fact that the Crown Court had shown itself ready to grant licences inconsistent with the Council's past practice, which might lead to further complaints from Licence Holders who felt themselves disadvantaged; (d) the possibility of further complaints or claims being made by the large number of applicants whose applications might now be unlawfully deferred; and (e) the prospect of repeated legal actions, and of repeated awards of costs against the Council, if the Committee sought to maintain a policy which might be unlawful, and which in any event was of only sectional interest."

This latter expression was, of course, a reference to the existing taxi licence holders. In the event the Council adopted Resolution 32, which is the resolution complained of in these proceedings. This resolution reads as follows: "(1) That with effect from the 1st December 1987 restrictions no longer be made on the number of Hackney Carriage Licence Plates issued; (2) That public notice be given to Resolution (1) above and existing Hackney Carriage and Private Hire operators, together with those on the waiting list, be informed in order to establish the likely number of additional licences that will be required; (3) That the Chief Executive report to the next meeting on the implications of Resolution (1) above; (4) That in the light of Resolution (1) above, no action be taken in respect of the allegation of breach of conditions by the Holder of Licence numbers 44, 45, 46, and 47."

The rest of the history can be briefly stated. The decision was communicated to each of the existing licence holders and to their associations. Neither the individual licence holders nor the association made any representations to the Committee at the next meeting on 13 October 1987. Messrs Wilsons did not write.

At the meeting, the Committee did not discuss de-regulation at all but merely resolved to accept the main recommendations of the Chief Executive in a report he had prepared for the meeting. Pursuant to an Order of this Court obtained by the applicants on 27th November, no further licence was issued on 1st December nor prior to this hearing.

By these proceedings the applicant seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of 18th August and a declaration that before deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion to restrict the number of licences under Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 as amended the respondent Council give the applicant and other licence holders reasonable opportunity to make representations to it on the subject.

Paragraph 8 of the application grounds state as follows: "On the 18th August 1987 without obtaining calling for or seeing the said research and before it was available from the Department of Transport in breach of its resolution and of its policy of prior consultation the Committee resolved, without giving notice to the applicant or his fellow licence holders or permitting them to attend or inform them of the said meeting 'that with effect from the 1st December 1987 restrictions no longer be made on the number of hackney carriage licence plates issued'."

It is further contended that: "The applicant has been prejudiced by the said resolution of the 18th August 1987. The Council are in breach of their promise not to consider the policy of restriction until research was to hand. The applicant and his fellow licence holders have been denied a chance to make representations and their legitimate expectations have not been fulfilled."

Counsel for the applicant conceded that the Respondents could not fetter their discretion so as to override their statutory duty and he therefore accepts that the Council was entitled to change its mind. The centre of his criticism is the manner in which the policy was changed. He submits that the manner in which the decision of August 1987 was taken in the light of the circumstances and previous history was grossly unfair to the extent that the court should intervene. The taxi drivers had a legitimate expectation that the policy would not be changed until research was available and that in the event of any changes of mind in the meantime, or when the research was available, they would be given the opportunity to state their objections to any such change.

Counsel on both sides took me carefully through a number of authorities; including, Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs, [1969] 2 Ch 149, [1969] 1 All ER 904; R v Liverpool Corporation ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Associations [1972] 2 QB 299, [1972] 2 All ER 589; Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu, [1984] AC 629, [1983] 2 All ER 346; In Re Khan, [1984] 1 WLR 1337; Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374, [1984] 3 All ER 935, and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Ruddock [1987] 2 All ER 518, [1987] 1 WLR 1482. I hope I do no injustice to the research and energies of counsel if I do not refer to those authorities in detail.

In particular, he relies upon R v Liverpool Corporation Ex Parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association, [1972] 2 QB 299, [1972] 2 All ER 589. Briefly, the facts were that in 1970 and 1971 when many private cars operated for hire in the streets, the applicants, two associations who represented all the interests of the 300 existing licence holders, were assured by the Town Clerk that they would be consulted if any change in the numbers were contemplated. In 1971, a special subcommittee of the Council recommended increases for 1972 and 1973 and no restriction in numbers thereafter but heard the applicants' case against the proposals.

On 4 August at a public meeting at full Council, the Committee Chairman gave a public undertaking that the numbers would not be increased above 300 until proposed legislation for controlling private hire cars had been enacted and come into force. That undertaking was confirmed orally both by the Chairman to the sub-committee and by a letter dated 11th August from the Town Council, but in November the sub-committee resolved an increase for 1972. The Committee confirmed it later and later still the full Council confirmed the resolution.

It was held that though the determination as to the number of taxicab licences to be issued was a policy decision to be made by the Council in the exercise of its statutory powers under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and they could not intervene with such a policy issue, the Court could and should intervene to ensure that the Council acted fairly in deciding the policy after due regard to conflicting interests. In view of the past history of the matter and in particular the undertaking publicly given to the applicants on behalf of the Council, the applicants were justifiably aggrieved by the Council's subsequent unfair conduct.

In particular, reliance was placed upon the passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Willmer R v Liverpool Corporation ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association [1972] 2QB 299, [1972] 2 All ER 589 at page 312A of the former report: "I confess that as I have listened to the story of what happened in this case, I have not found the behaviour of the Liverpool Corporation particularly attractive. We are not, of course, concerned with the question of how many taxi cabs there ought to be in Liverpool. That is a matter of policy, the decision of which is entrusted to the Corporation as the local authority. The objection here is to the method which was adopted, or sought to be adopted, in framing the Corporation's policy with regard to the number of taxicabs.

The applicants, who represent the owners of the existing licence taxi cabs operating in the City of Liverpool, are of necessity persons who are vitally interested in that policy. During the year 1970 they received repeated assurances that they would be consulted with regard to the number of licences to be allowed. Moreover, following the publication of the proposed resolution by special sub-committee in March or April 1971, they were specifically invited to make any representations they desired to make on the proposed resolution. As a result, they did have the opportunity of appearing by counsel and making representations in July 1971. So far so good."

The learned Lord Justice then sets out the history of the matter, which I have already summarised. R v Liverpool Corporation ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association [1972] 2 QB 299, [1972] 2 All ER 589. At page 313E of the former report he said: "As has been pointed out by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, what is now sought to be done can only be regarded as being in flat defiance of the undertaking publicly given by the Chairman of the sub-committee at the meeting of the City Council and repeated privately to the applicants through the town clerk's letter. It seems to me in these very special circumstances, having regard to the history of how this matter had been dealt with in the past, and having regard especially to the giving of the undertaking, the applicants are justified in regarding themselves as 'aggrieved' by what I can only describe as unfair treatment on the part of the Liverpool Corporation."

R v Liverpool Corporation ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association [1972] 2 QB 299, [1972] 2 All ER 589, at page 310 of the former report at A Lord Justice Roskill said: "It has been said by Mr Morland on behalf of the council that the undertaking given by Alderman Craine does not bind the council. He has sought to persuade this Court that this is so because to oblige the council now to honour that undertaking would be to fetter the corporation's freedom of action in the performance of its statutory duty to consider other applications for licences after the respective dates mentioned in the resolution of December 22, 1971. It is said that the corporation having lawfully passed that resolution, no prior undertaking, however clearly given, however much in conflict with the resolution, can be allowed to stand in the way of implementing that resolution. It is said that this Court should refuse to grant the relief claimed because the Court is under as great a duty to protect the interests of possible future licencees as to protect the interests of those who at present hold a monopoly of the existing licences. For my part, I do not think this court is under any duty to protect the interests of either rival group of licencees or would-be licencees.

Its duty is to see that in dealing with the conflicting interests the council acts fairly between them. It is for the council and not for this court to determine what the future policy should be in relation to the number of taxi licences which are to be issued in the City of Liverpool. It is not for this court to consider population growths or falls or the extent of the demand for taxis within or without the city or whether there should be more licences issued in the future than in the past or whether the present grave unemployment position on Merseyside is a relevant consideration. All those are matters for the Council. This Court is concerned to see that whatever policy the Corporation adopts is adopted after due and fair regard to all the conflicting interests. The power of the Court to intervene is not limited, as once was thought, to those cases where the function in question is judicial or quasi-judicial."

Thus counsel submits that in the present case the Council through the Committee and Resolution 952 in effect made a promise to the taxi drivers and that it ought to be held to its promise. Mr Pickett and his colleagues thought nothing more would be done until the research was available and they and their solicitors were sent a letter to that effect.

Secondly, Counsel relies upon certain passages in the well-known authority of the Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, [1984] 3 All ER 935, known as the GCHQ case. I quote the passage from Lord Diplock at page 408F of the former report: "To qualify as a subject for judicial review the decision must have consequences which affect some person (or body of persons) other than the decision-maker, although it may affect him too. It must affect such other person either: (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law; or (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately be permitted to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn," etc.

Counsel acknowledges that there is no private law or statutory duty, but he submits there was a right to be heard and there was a legitimate expectation coupled with what had been said in August 1986 that they would be consulted or there would be a right to make further representations as to why the policy should not be abandoned. The decision was of the utmost importance to the taxi drivers' livelihood.

He points out that the earlier lobbying had been effective but in the interim period those constituting the Committee had changed. The practice of consultation was firmly established and unless further consultation was allowed, the councillors would not know whether or not to accept or reject the advice of their officials. The subsequent decision was in flat defiance of the assurance that had been given earlier.

I have considered those submissions with the greatest of care. In arriving at my conclusion, I take as my starting point Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985. This clearly established on a proper construction of that section that the permissive "may" in the Town Police Causes Act 1847 has been transformed into a partially mandatory "must". Thus, unless the licensing authority is satisfied that there is no significant demand, which is unmet, it is obliged to issue a licence to an otherwise suitable applicant. In coming to that conclusion, I bear in mind the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ex Parte Sawyer and the decision of Mr Justice Nolan in R v Reading Borough Council Ex Parte Egan and Sullman to which I have already referred.

Thus, the committee was under a duty imposed by the statute to comply with the provision of Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 whereby they must grant licences until and unless they were satisfied of no unmet demand. They were also under a duty as a Council to discontinue any policy which, if pursued, would involve them in judicial review proceedings by aggrieved persons who wanted a licence but were prevented by a policy which was not sustainable in law and unlawful, with the attendant risks of costs being awarded against the Council.

There was also a duty to discontinue a policy which, if pursued, would result in aggrieved and suitably qualified persons appealing to the Crown Court where the result would probably be either an adverse finding against the council or a compromise order by consent with an order for costs against it. In addition, the Committee had a right to change its policy at any time. These duties and this right in my judgment overrode any legitimate expectation of reconsultation.

However, I have come to the conclusion that there was in fact no legitimate expectation that the taxi drivers would be reconsulted in the light of what transpired after the 1986 resolution or that they were in fact placed in a false sense of security. It is true that prior notification could have been given to the Taxi Drivers Association. It might, with hindsight, have been wise or prudent for the Chief Executive or Mr Holder to write to Messrs Wilsons saying that in the light of the recent decisions in the courts, it was likely or even possible that Mr Trollope's application might cause the Committee to look again at its policy. It might also have been prudent to adjourn the discussion of Mr Trollope's application into private session and to conduct that part of the meeting leading to the reversal of the August 1986 resolution in public session.

However, these matters notwithstanding, I am satisfied that there was no obligation, express or implied, to inform the solicitors or to conduct the proceedings in such a manner. There is nothing inherently unfair in their failure to do so. The events in the 12 months preceding the 1986 resolution should have indicated to the taxi drivers and their solicitors that a change of policy was, if I may use an expression, at least on the cards. It was always a possibility that the local authority might be advised by their officials that they were acting unlawfully, that they were failing in their statutory duty to deregulate and that they should reverse or alter the 1986 resolution.

I have also come to the conclusion that there is no substance in the submission relating to the so-called promise. The promise made in the Liverpool taxi drivers' case is not comparable with and is distinguishable from Resolution 952. In the Liverpool case, the Committee Chairman and the Town Clerk gave an undertaking that the number of licences would not be increased above a specified number pending legislation. It is also to be borne in mind that the events of the Liverpool case all occurred before the 1985 Act came into force. Here the undertaking was less specific, merley that consideration of deregulation would be deferred pending the outcome of research which had still not been completed.

Consequently, in my judgment, the taxi drivers were not justified in assuming that whatever happened in the meantime and before the research was available the Council could not and would never have cause to change, reverse, or modify Resolution 952. Equally, the taxi drivers were not justified in thinking that the resolution could remain or would remain unaltered even if it were shown to be or the Council had reason to believe that it was unlawful. For those reasons, the application is dismissed.

DISPOSITION:
Application dismissed with costs

SOLICITORS:
Wilsons, Salisbury; Underwood & Co agents for the Solicitors for Salisbury District Council