Renfrewshire Driver wrote:
[48] It is, of course, the case that, at pages 169 to 173 of the appeal print, the sheriff expressed his view concerning the lawfulness of the policy adopted by the appellants and the licensing conditions which implemented that policy. He expressed the opinion at page 173 that the development of that policy and the licensing conditions associated with it was ultra vires, going beyond the powers entrusted to the appellants by Parliament. Before us, counsel for the respondent did not attempt to defend the sheriff's reasoning which led him to that conclusion.
So even Sneddon's counsel didn't bother to advance the sheriff's ultra vires argument
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
Quote:
In brief, it was, as we understand it, that, since the Secretary of State had not exercised the regulation- making power conferred in section 20 of the 1982 Act, it was not open to the appellants to develop such a policy as is in question here, with associated conditions. Like counsel for the respondent, we consider that the sheriff's reasoning in this regard was erroneous, for the reasons we have already expressed. Simply because the Secretary of State has a power to make regulations in relation to the suitability of vehicles for use as taxis, with particular regard to the needs of the disabled, as appears from section 20(2A), which has not been exercised, does not lead to the conclusion reached by the sheriff.
And weren't some on here arguing that because the SoS hadn't made regs under s.20(2) then councils didn't have powers to make any conditions relating to vehicles at all?
Login
Register
FAQ
