|
This is just a reminder of the legal position in respect of Hardship and section 16. Many of the remaining 80 restricted councils have cited prospective hardship as one of their reasons for retaining numbers control.
In such matters of competition and restricted practises the courts have determined that hardship is not grounds for intervening in the decision of a council to remove Quantity controls.
Although various trade bodies in their attempt to muddy the waters will always cite hardship as a reason for retaining quantity controls. These very same people also state more cabs means less vehicles plying for hire? If your confused so am I.
Here is the legal position according to law.
On an application for judicial review of a decision of a licensing authority to remove restrictions on the grant of hackney carriage licences in its area in accordance with s.16 of the 1985 Act, the Divisional Court commented that while it was in principle open to the courts in appropriate cases to quash decisions of the licensing authority taken in the implementation of s.16, in practice the role of the courts was extremely limited in such cases. Hardship caused to individual taxi operators was not a ground for intervention by the courts in such matters (see R v Great Yarmouth BC, ex p. Sawyer [1987] The Times, 18 June).
Regards
JD
|
Login
Register
FAQ
