Taxi Driver Online

We see and hear of councillors making unlawful decisions under illegal procedural mandatory requirements on a fairly regular basis. Councillors appear to be a law unto themselves and we have plenty of documented evidence to support that fact. Power has the ability to corrupt even the merest of mortals, therefore it is no surprises that a great many councillors fall victim to its prey.

Falling foul of unlawful Procedure under mandatory requirement is not restricted to just England and Wales, the law applies equally to Scotland, therefore the next time you have cause to be aggrieved by the decision of a local council bear that in mind.

Liverpool Taxi drivers were one such body of people that fell foul of such unlawful decision making.
_________________________

Mandatory and directory requirements under statute.

In many cases the legal consequence of non-compliance with procedural or formal requirements has been regarded as wholly or partly dependent upon the answer to the question whether the requirement is to be classified as mandatory or directory, but a variety of different meanings have been attached to this distinction.

Where a statute provides a mandatory procedure it must be followed. Where a provision is construed as merely directory, substantial compliance will suffice. A party complaining of breach of a directory requirement must show some prejudice, whereas this is not a precondition of relief where the requirement is held to be mandatory. The court always retains a discretion, even in the case of mandatory requirements, as to whether one of the prerogative remedies should be allowed to go or a declaration or injunction be granted.

In classifying a provision as mandatory or directory, the court must look to its purpose and its relationship with the scheme, subject matter and objective of the statute in which it appears, and must attempt to assess the importance attached to it by Parliament.
____________________________

1 See Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex p Jeyeanthan [1999] 3 All ER 231, CA.

2 Coney v Choyce [1975] 1 All ER 979, [1975] 1 WLR 422.

3 See for example, R v Liverpool City Council, ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association [1975] 1 WLR 701 at 706, DC, per Lord Widgery CJ.

4 Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service [1978] AC 655 at 698, HL, per Lord Salmon.
__________________________

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.