Taxi Driver Online

It's the QCs job to get a tough ride, that's why you pay him a lot of money.

That aside, the Sheriff will go and read all the judgements and his decision will be based on the facts, not on the rhetoric.

For what its worth I have a good feeling that you will come out on top, Dundee and Coyle, in my opinion, will be very hard to over turn.

_________________
IDFIMH

i got the feeling that the sheriff didnt understand what our brief was putting to her ,but i feel the penny finaly dropped with towards the end.
anyway she will have to go away and look over all the relevent case law
and thats when the penny will drop with her and she will, i think have no option but to apply the law.
i doubt she will go against these previous judgements.
we will know soon enough?

Sounds like a different case to the one I listened to, but never mind.
I am surprised that the administrators on this forum deem it appropriate to advise and support this case. No consideration or support is shown for the 3,000 drivers who will suffer because of one person's idiocy.
Should this case be won by Skull, he will have to learn to drive the 4 taxis he would have to put on. He would be unable to sell on the licences, since it is guaranteed that the council would immediately derestrict thus wiping out any theoretical value they have - something that the vast majority of drivers as well as owners do not want nor need. Since Skull also applied for a PHC licence and was refused, it is likely that his taxi applications would be refused as well on the grounds that he is not a fit person.
Time will tell!!!

Ali T

Did you attend court Ali?

Regards

JD

JD wrote: Where you happy with the Barrister representing you?


My only criticism if anything was that he was to sharp for his own good his argument was well structured as you would expect but a little on the quick side, if you weren’t sure of the argument you were stuffed. We understood him because we pondered over the paper work for weeks prior to the case; I think the sheriff was playing catch up although you never know she looked pretty sharp to me. We couldn’t help get the feeling that she wanted to slap him down because he was making the opposition look like bumbling arse holes.


I don’t know if this is altogether a good thing but believe me he went for them like a man possessed, it was even noted that he had attacked Mr. Millar’s professional credibility by the other QC.

I thought there might have been some sort of etiquette in the legal profession where they would not stray over that line but Mr. Bell QC didn’t appear to give a [edited by admin].


Scary!!!!!!

It will be interesting to read the court manuscript, if reported. What are the chances of the loser appealing? Do you think the council will accept the verdict and issue the licenses, or are they likely to appeal? It was interesting to read your comments about the Sheriff perhaps not being familiar with Taxi law but I suspect she will be guided by current case law as other observers have suggested.

Based on current Scottish law I would say the appellents are 1/7 favourites to win and the respondent council 3/1.

Regards

JD

Well, I sat through the whole thing.

Although as an Edinburgh taxi driver I have an interest in this case, I am not one of the respondents.

I really don't know which way it will go and I'll be very interested to read the Sheriff's opinion.

What was blindingly apparent was the woeful ineptitude which is rife in the council, from the front counter to the top and back again. Whether that is deemed relevant in the legal arguments we will have to wait and see.

If the respondents are unsuccessful I would go so far as to say that a different advocate/sheriff combination may have proven more fruitful. The sheriff did seem to exhibit more sympathetic body language to the appellants.

What would happen if the extension was granted, the licences refused, and the sheriff's decision later appealed and overturned?

Would the licences then have to be granted?

Point is, either way, I guess this still has plenty mileage.

Keep us posted.

I think I should clarify my meaning of appellants. My reference to appellants is those that are appealing against the councils decision to grant them a license. I refer to the council as the respondents.

The sheriff does not have the legal power to disturb a decision by the higher court, therefore at all times he is guided by the higher courts judgement. His powers are very limited in that respect. The sheriff has to determine each case on its facts and as we know, Edinburgh council may have tried to introduce evidence that they were in possession of up to date evidence of unmet demand at the time the licenses were refused.

I wasn't there so I don't know what evidence the council produced in order to try and convince the court that they had "recent evidence of demand" when refusing the applicants.

If the sheriff believes the council did act within the law as defined by the cases of Dundee and Coyle then he might grant the council's request to defer. If on the other hand, he finds the council did not fulfil the legal test as laid down by the two cases mentioned, he will have no option but to grant the licenses.

The answer to your question is that the applicants in all probability will get their licenses if the decision of the sheriff is overturned in the higher court. Dundee and Coyle are prime examples of Scottish case law the sheriff would be ill advised to depart from that.

Regards

JD

Sounds like a different case to the one I listened to, but never mind.

Strange their was no one their apart from our group and nf a couple of posts up. well
Apart that is from mr Muldoon (Scottish taxi federation) who appeared on both days and stayed for all of 15 mins per day and slept through half of that time?
One thing I found very strange the fact that mr Muldoon sat on the councils side and chatted with them. surely he should have been on our side in fact shouldn’t he be supporting us???

I am surprised that the administrators on this forum deem it appropriate to advise and support this case. No consideration or support is shown for the 3,000 drivers who will suffer because of one person's idiocy.

Please explain how anyone will suffer deregulation aint coming win or lose.

I feel you are forgetting an important factor here i.e. all the 32 applicants are drivers who wish to operate their own taxis

Should this case be won by Skull, he will have to learn to drive the 4 taxis he would have to put on.

There are 4 applicants mr Thomson is just one of those 1 taxi each idiot.

He would be unable to sell on the licences, since it is guaranteed that the council would immediately derestrict thus wiping out any theoretical value they have - something that the vast majority of drivers as well as owners do not want nor need.
please divulge the information that you obviously have that guarantees de-restriction and thiers nothing theoretical about 45k

Since Skull also applied for a PHC licence and was refused, it is likely that his taxi applications would be refused as well on the grounds that he is not a fit person.
Do you really think it would have got to court if it was that easy.
why not change youre name to falsecabinfo seems more appropriate.

jd ill clear up some of the confusion for you


the council didnt refuse our applications?

they appllied for an extension of time to the 6 month period.
based on the fact that they will have up to date information on unmet demand sometime in the future?

the council are the appelants.

we are the respondents in this case.

hope this helps?

Thank you Ali. I was under the impression the six-month time limit had expired and this case was an appeal against the refusal of a council to issue a license. I must admit that when I saw the council named first in the action I wondered if indeed it was the actual appeal. So when does the six-month period for decision making lapse?

Regards

JD

the councils six month period has lapsed

we applied in nov 2004 so they ran out of time by may 2005

they applied to the courts for an extension on virtually the last day of the six month period

thierby getting thier extension while waiting for the courts to decide if they should be granted an extensiondirty dawgs
they should have if they were being fair at all applied for an extension when it became apparent that they could not answer us say around about 3/4 months into the allowed 6 months

the council has not given any consideration to our applications for fear of falling foul of the dundee case.
they have not refused us ???

if the decision goes against us then its appeal time

So as suggested previously they have gone down the road of deferment but doesn't Scottish law dictate that a council has to make a decision within six months of the application? Even allowing for the new tactic of applying for an extension there is nothing that I can see in the Dundee case which would give the council much comfort.

Very interesting from a legal point of view and if it does go to appeal it will no doubt be another point clarified.

Regards

JD

i tend to aggree with you jd
and i simpy think that it will come down to the higher courts decision,
if it doesnt this would become a very contentios issue for the courts
as this would solve nothing as the same case would end up in front of them again and a different decision would be made where the courts would have to refer this time to the coyle and dundee cases
and would rule in our favour.
i think the sheriffs are very well aware of what goes on in thier courts and this possible situation is one that they would not allow to happen.
as it would make an ass of the law

I suspect you are no doubt aware of the prevarication and delaying tactics that councils use in order to abuse the legal rights of an applicant. That is why in this country very few councils will give a definite refusal to an application for a Hackney carriage license. Plymouth is a case in point, Edinburgh in Scotland is now another.

The good thing about Scottish law is that they have the six-month rule but as I suspected it was only a matter of time before a council in Scotland tried the deferment approach that is so commonly used in England and Wales.

Dundee didn't defer they actually refused the applicant but the comments of the Sheriff which were ultimately upheld by the court of Session, spelt out very clearly what is expected of the council when confronted with an application.

I will be surprised if the Sheriff departs from the Dundee case but you never know what she might come up with?

Regards

JD