captain cab wrote:
But wasn't the outcome of the Blackpool case that it was unlawful to set restrictions on one set of traders at the behest of another group, or something similar?
I always thought the Manchester case was with regards to newly issued licenses?
It was about newly issued licenses, but the stipulation of the license was that the vehicle had to be a WAV. It was contended that the condition was unlawful because it didn't apply to existing vehicles. The court ruled that the condition was not unlawfull and it has now become the main case that councils rely on to implement a wav only policy, while at the same time keeping existing saloon type vehicles.
The Blackpool case is exactly how I stated in fact you can read it for yourself below.
regards
JD
...............................................
R. v Blackpool BC Ex p. Red Cab Taxis Ltd
(QBD) Queen's Bench Division
29 April 1994
Times, May 13, 1994
Summary
Subject: Licensing
Abstract: The applicants were owners and operators of private hire vehicles. There had been a long-running dispute with the local hackney carriage drivers relating to private hire vehicles touting for trade. As a result of representations made by the hackney carriage drivers, the licensing authority decided to impose a condition on the private hire operators' licences that precluded them from standing at any public place, including privately owned land or premises to which persons had access whether as of right or not, without a pre-arranged booking. The applicants sought judicial review of the decision.
Summary: Held, dismissing the application on the basis that the applicants should have pursued their right of appeal to the justices rather than seek judicial review since other remedies were available, that the decision itself created a perception that one group had been disadvantaged at the behest of another and also created an opportunity for muddle and confusion. The decision-making process was unfair and flawed and the decision itself was arguably unreasonable (R. v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Ex p. Calveley [1986] Q.B. 424, R. v Birmingham City Council Ex p. Ferrero [1993] 1 All E.R. 530 applied).
Judge: Judge, J.
Counsel: For RTC: Philip Engelman and Joanne Briggs. For BBC: Timothy Straker
Solicitor: For RTC: Betesh Partnership (Manchester). For BBC: David Eccles (Blackpool).
Cases Cited
R. v Birmingham City Council Ex p. Ferrero, [1993] 1 All E.R. 530; (1991) 155 J.P. 721; 89 L.G.R. 977; (1991) 3 Admin. L.R. 613; (1991) 10 Tr. L.R. 129; [1991] C.O.D. 476; (1991) 155 J.P.N. 522; (1991) 155 L.G. Rev. 645; Times, May 30, 1991; Independent, May 24, 1991 (CA (Civ Div))
R. v Chief Constable of Merseyside Ex p. Calveley, [1986] Q.B. 424; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 144; [1986] 1 All E.R. 257; [1986] I.R.L.R. 177; Times, November 28, 1985 (CA (Civ Div))
Case Comments
Conditions; Judicial review; Licensing; Local authorities powers and duties; Taxis. Private hire taxis: appeal or judicial review? L.G. and L. 1994, 4(7), 12
Conditions; Judicial review; Licensing; Local authorities powers and duties; Taxis. Licensing. L.A.L. 1994, 5, 6
END OF DOCUMENT
.......................................................
The Times
May 13, 1994, Friday
HEADLINE: Rectifying unreasonable taxi licence condition
BODY:
Queen's Bench Division. Regina v Blackpool Borough Council, Ex parte Red Cab Taxis Ltd and Others
Before Mr Justice Judge
(Judgment April 29)
Although a local authority had wrongly imposed an unreasonable condition on a licence issued to private hire cars, judicial review would not be granted as the aggrieved parties could seek rectification by statutory right of appeal.
Mr Justice Judge so stated in the Queen's Bench Division in dismissing an application for judicial review by Red Cab Taxis Ltd, five other taxi companies and three individual taxi operators, of a decision of Blackpool Borough Council on November 9, 1993 to attach to the grant of a private hire licence a condition which precluded an operator, proprietor or driver holding such a licence from permitting a private hire vehicle to stand at any public place other than in connection with a pre-arranged booking.
Mr Philip Engelman for the applicants; Mr Timothy Straker for Blackpool.
MR JUSTICE JUDGE said that the council had sought to resolve by consultation long standing differences between operators of hackney cabs and private hire vehicles.
Without warning, however, on receipt of complaints from the former group, it had introduced a new condition which, at its lowest, created the impression that the private hire cars were disadvantaged if not in fact so. That process was flawed.
Moreover, the condition itself lacked clarity and was obscure enough so as to be read as precluding private hire cars from standing at a public place on which they had a right to go or where they had a contractual obligation to go.
The local authority had power under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to grant licences subject to conditions where reasonably necessary.
A condition whose objective was to hinder or prevent private hire cars from plying for hire at some sort of taxi rank would not have been ultra vires.
The condition as worded, however, if implemented to give advantage to hackney cabs would not be ''reasonably necessary''. As it could be read, the condition was not reasonable within the Wednesbury sense ((1948) 1 KB 223). His Lordship was assisted by the judgment of Lord Justice Kennedy in R v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, Ex parte Earls Court Ltd (The Times July 15, 1993).
Although the private hire operators had succeeded on the substantive issue, the exercise of judicial discretion was not straightforward because they also had a statutory right of appeal to the magistrates court.
In looking at the practical effect for the private hire operators the condition could be amended in the magistrates court as it could not be by the process of judicial review.
If one appellant in each category of operator, proprietor and driver succeeded before the magistrates, then that finding would apply for all.
If a test case failed, then individuals would be able to appeal, with the result applied to all the others affected.
Solicitors: Betesh Partnership, Manchester; Mr David Eccles, Blackpool.
...................................
Login
Register
FAQ
