Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Berwick Judgement
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9853		 Page 1 of 9
Author:  Alex [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Berwick Judgement
Make of this what you will.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /2369.html

Alex
Author:  Tom Thumb [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
And what does it all mean.

The judge seems to be fudging the issue.
Author:  JD [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
After all the ballyhoo from those good judges in the Northeast the judgment is exactly how I predicted.

Perhaps Newcastle will now get their act together and start catching people who illegaly ply for hire.

If I was Berwick I would most definately appeal against paying 50% of Newcastles costs.

Regards

JD
Author:  JD [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tom Thumb wrote:
And what does it all mean.


It means nothing has changed.

Quote:
The judge seems to be fudging the issue.


Newcastle wanted three things, they got none of them because Berwick did nothing unlawful.

In order to give Newcastle some costs he had to lay a portion of the blame at the door of Berwick, hence suggesting that Berwick could have moraly done more to limit the number of hackney carriages they licensed, albeit recognising the fact that what they did was not unlawful. The judge said Gladden is the law until such time it is changed. (and it is exactly how taxi driver online interpreted it and not how Peter Maddox interpreted it.)

The judge suggested that licenses should only go to people who wish to ply their trade in Berwick but he recognises there is no law that restricts them from operating as private hire anywhere in the country. He also failed to take into consideration that any applicant refused a license on the grounds that they live outside the area would not be seen as a valid reason for a refusal.

Poor judgment as far as I'm concerned because he penalised the wrong party with costs, when by his own admission they acted lawfully.

Regards

JD
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tom Thumb wrote:
And what does it all mean.

The judge seems to be fudging the issue.

I think he is saying Berwick can ask where vehicles/drivers are working, but they don't have to act on it.

He is also saying PH operators can give work to non-local hackneys, without breaching the 1976 act.

And it appears the Wrexham mag court case is being appealed and that might give us a bit more clarity. Which IMO this judgement doesn't.

But basically it appears that no one needs to change anything, but they can try if they wish. :?
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
I quite like this judgement :D

CC
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
I quite like this judgement :D

Why? :?
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
I quite like this judgement :D

Why? :?


It's going to give (IMO) our learned friends lots of cash in the future.

CC
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Judge wrote:
]It seems to me that it must be desirable for an authority issuing licences to hackney carriage to be able to restrict the issuing of those licences to proprietors and drivers which are intending to ply for hire in that authority's area. Similarly it must be desirable to be able to refuse to issue licences to proprietors and drivers who do not intend to ply for hire, to a material extent, in the area of the licence grantor.

I wonder under what authority the judge suggests a way that any council can restrict the number of hackney carriage drivers? :?
Author:  JD [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Judge wrote:
]It seems to me that it must be desirable for an authority issuing licences to hackney carriage to be able to restrict the issuing of those licences to proprietors and drivers which are intending to ply for hire in that authority's area. Similarly it must be desirable to be able to refuse to issue licences to proprietors and drivers who do not intend to ply for hire, to a material extent, in the area of the licence grantor.

I wonder under what authority the judge suggests a way that any council can restrict the number of hackney carriage drivers? :?


He is "asking" licensing authorities to take into consideration the proximity of the applicant and to ask them the question whether or not they intend to use the vehicle as private hire in another licensing area. In other words if it seems obvious they do intend to use the vehicle as ph in another area then the council should exercise their discretion and refuse the license.

I'm sure the magistrates courts will soon bring this judge down to earth, even though it should be the other way around.

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Judge rules over rival taxi row

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7711503.stm

Newcastle cabbies said their livelihoods were under threat
A judge has told Berwick Council to rethink its policy on taxi licences after Tyneside cabbies protested over an influx of rival operators.

Newcastle City Council brought the High Court case, complaining Berwick Council was issuing hundreds of licences which could be used anywhere in the UK.

The town has 672 licensed Hackney carriages, one for every 40 residents.

Berwick Council has now been advised by the court that is should only license taxis intending to operate locally.

The court heard the streets of Newcastle were flooded with Berwick-licensed taxis doing private hire work.

'Local in character'

The border town's cheaper and easier regime had seen a rapid increase from just 46 licensed Hackney carriages in April 2006, the judge was told.

The court heard Berwick licensed cabs were common in town's across the North East and some drivers lived as far afield as the West Midlands, Wales, Liverpool, and Surrey.

Judge Christopher Symons QC rejected Berwick Council's arguments that it is obliged by law to issue a Hackney carriage license to any applicant, so long as they and their vehicle are "fit".

He said the taxi-licensing regime, which dates back to 1847, was designed to protect the public and was essentially "local in character".

He said: "The licensing system should operate in such a way that the authority licensing Hackney carriages is the authority for the area in which those vehicles are generally used."

"If the Hackney carriages are used in areas remote from Berwick, enforcement will be very difficult and impracticable."

Judge Symons said his ruling would remain at the authority's discretion.

A spokesman for Newcastle City Council said it was "delighted" with the outcome of the case.

Berwick Council said it was now preparing a new policy in light of the ruling.
Author:  grandad [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:


A spokesman for Newcastle City Council said it was "delighted" with the outcome of the case.

Berwick Council said it was now preparing a new policy in light of the ruling.


If after this judgement, "nothing has changed" as stated by JD, How come Newcastle are delighted and Berwick are preparing a new policy? Or is this just some news spin?
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
grandad wrote:
captain cab wrote:


A spokesman for Newcastle City Council said it was "delighted" with the outcome of the case.

Berwick Council said it was now preparing a new policy in light of the ruling.


If after this judgement, "nothing has changed" as stated by JD, How come Newcastle are delighted and Berwick are preparing a new policy? Or is this just some news spin?


It means JD doesnt like it :wink:

CC
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
grandad wrote:
If after this judgement, "nothing has changed" as stated by JD, How come Newcastle are delighted and Berwick are preparing a new policy? Or is this just some news spin?

Not sure why Newcastle are delighted as all the judge did was advise Berwick that the can change their policy. Now of course if Berwick's position was that they want to change their policy but the acts prohibit that, then fair enough, but do they, and how do they propose to enforce any new policy? :?
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
If after this judgement, "nothing has changed" as stated by JD, How come Newcastle are delighted and Berwick are preparing a new policy? Or is this just some news spin?

Not sure why Newcastle are delighted as all the judge did was advise Berwick that the can change their policy. Now of course if Berwick's position was that they want to change their policy but the acts prohibit that, then fair enough, but do they, and how do they propose to enforce any new policy? :?


Perhaps put a question on the application form asking where the applicant intends to use the vehicle?

CC
Page 1 of 9 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/