Taxi Driver Online

REIGATE & BANSTEAD BOROUGH COUNCIL v STUART GRAHAM GARRETT (2000)

QBD (Crown Office List) (Sachs J) 7/7/2000

LICENSING - CIVIL PROCEDURE - LOCAL GOVERNMENT - TRANSPORT

HACKNEY CARRIAGES : TAXIS : LICENCES : RENEWAL : NEW : REFUSAL : JOINT LICENSEES : DISPUTE : APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL BY ONE OF TWO JOINT LICENSEES : S.60 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 : APPEALS : JURISDICTION : CROWN COURT : MAGISTRATES' COURT

An application by one of two joint holders of a hackney carriage licence for a renewal of the existing licence was properly to be regarded as a request for the repetition of the old licence, and not as a request for the grant of a new licence. Accordingly, an appeal against the decision to refuse that application lay to the magistrates' court and not to the Crown Court.

Appeal by way of case stated by the licensing authority ('the council') against a decision of the Dorking Magistrates Court ('the magistrates') allowing the appeal of Mr Garrett ('G') against the council's refusal to renew a hackney carriage licence (‘the existing licence’) in his favour. In April 1996 the existing licence was issued to G and a third party ('E') as joint proprietors. G and E subsequently fell out, and G applied for the renewal of the existing licence in his sole name.

The council refused that application. G appealed to the magistrates' court, which had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a refusal to renew a licence. However, the council contended that the licence for which G had in fact applied could not properly be regarded as a repetition of the existing licence, since G had only sought a licence in his sole name.

Accordingly, the council argued, his application had been for the grant of a new licence, an appeal against the refusal of which lay to the Crown Court alone. The magistrates held that G's application was properly to be regarded as an application for renewal of the existing licence, and hence held that they had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under s.60 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. On the facts the magistrates found that there was no reasonable cause for refusing to renew the licence.

HELD: The magistrates had correctly assumed jurisdiction. To have held otherwise would have represented a manifest injustice. There was no sustainable basis for challenging the decision which they had reached on the facts.

Appeal dismissed.

I wonder what the mags court decided.

I can't believe they allowed the renewal under the one name.

_________________
IDFIMH

Its a complictaed case because both parties applied for the renewal of the license.

Regards

JD

The judgement of solomon was required here.

I thought you didn't read these legal cases I put up? Are you having an off day or just bored?

It's Friday night, isn't there unmet demand in you manor on a Friday night, or are they all scared of the dark?

JD

So many questions! 1) I speed read the legal cases. 2) not an off day, or even a day off! 3) Bored 4) It IS Friday night! 5) NO unmet demand! 6) I'm not scared of the dark, but I do have a laptop, and the rank sits on a hotspot, so I have internet connection, even in the quietest moments, like a friday night.

By the way, Solomons judgement, in a case where two women disputed the parentage of a baby, to whit, both claimed to be the Mother of the baby, was to rip the baby in two, and give the mothers half each, I was suggesting the license should have been ripped in two and given to neither. I hope Sussex is paying attention to this case, as I understand he favours partnerships, and this shows how they so often end in tears.

And you think thats wise, do you?

How sad is that?

I thought I was bad.

_________________
IDFIMH

Don't knock it untill you have tried it. Like driving a Hackney Carriage for a living, for instance.

Well, yes I do, and if you read the story, so would you.

I can imagine the story goes something like this.

One of the women said, "divide the child in half and give me my share" and the real mother relinquished the rights to the baby and said, "spare the child and give it to the other woman". Solomon being a wise so and so said, in that case you must be the child's real mother and gave the baby to her? But what if the impostor had said it first? Solomon wouldn't be so wise would he? Considering it was a new born child a wise man would have said examine both women and see who has recently had a child? Or perhaps he might have said, to save this child's life you must be prepared to give up your own life? Only a simpleton would believe the great wise Solomon would be so barbaric as to cut a child in half and only a simpleton would believe another woman would say cut the child in half and give me my share.

Story has it that Solomon was visited by God, and asked what would he like? Solomon could have asked for a free plate in Sefton but instead he chose wisdom. Now if you believe God didn't appear to Solomon then the story of how he got his wisdom is a big fat lie and perhaps every other story about Solomon is questionable? If you do believe God paid him a visit and that's how he got his wisdom then you must believe in God?

I'm an atheist, I only believe in science and reality and the reality is that no woman on this earth in her right mind would say kill a child and give me my half.

The bible or scriptures whichever way you want to look at it are full of fairy tales, especially put there to influence vulnerable people like some I could mention. I think I would rather rely on the wisdom of Lord Denning than that of an ancient Jewish King who was supposedly visited by both wisdom and folly.

JD