Taxi Driver Online

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council v Monahan

Queen's Bench Division, (Crown Office List)

HEARING-DATES: 3 November 1983

3 November 1983

COUNSEL:

S Hockman for the Appellant; B McIntyre for the Respondent.

PANEL: Hodgson J

JUDGMENTBY-1: HODGSON J

JUDGMENT-1:

HODGSON J: Mr. Monahan is a taxi driver in Gateshead. For five years a licence issued was to him and another man in their joint names. The other man became, through illness, unable to continue as a taxi driver. Mr. Monahan applied for the renewal of the licence, previously in their joint names, in his single name.

The Appellant local authority delegate the decision-making process in so far as the suspension, revocation, renewal or refusal to renew licences is concerned. They delegate it to the Health and Safety Committee. That committee considered the matter and came to a conclusion on 10th November, 1982. The matter came before the council itself for information only on 3rd December, 1982, but notice was not sent to the Respondent by post until 17th December, 1982. It is not contended that it was sent timously, even if the decision was one made on 3rd December, 1982.

The Respondent appealed on the grounds that he was a person aggrieved under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, section 60(2). He appealed against the decision of the council refusing to renew his Hackney carriage licence. They were summoned before the Magistrates' Court to answer the complaint.

The case came before the Magistrates' Court on 24th March. The Respondent took a preliminary point, as in my judgment he was entitled to do. That is set out in paragraph 4 of the case stated. It was contended by Mr. Monahan that under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 section 60, notice was required to be given to the Respondent of the grounds on which his licence had been revoked. Such notice was required by that section to be given within 14 days of such suspension, revocation or refusal. The Respondent, Mr. Monahan, had not received such notice within the time specified since the relevant date of the decision was 10th November, 1982 wnen the Health and Safety Committee decided to refuse the licence.

In support of that contention, the Respondent produced an extract from the minutes of the committee on which it is stated that the matter had been dealt with on 10th November, 1982 by that committee under the powers delegated by the Appellant council; that the notice required by section 60(2) was not sent by the Appellant council until 17th December, 1982, and that it could not be said that the date of the decision was 3rd December, 1982, since by that date the delegated powers had already been exercised.

The local authority took up the cudgels and contested this preliminary point. They said that the correct date to take was the date when the matter came for information only before the council on 3rd December, 1982. Since that was the date when the council made its effective decision, that clearly, in my view, is a wrong contention. They further took the point that in fact the notice had been given within fourteen days of 3rd December, 1982. That was wrong, and is now conceded to be wrong.

In those circumstances, the Magistrates had no alternative on that point but to find in favour of the Respondent, Mr. Monahan. Indeed, on everything that was argued before the Magistrates, they were bound to find in his favour. So understandably, they allowed his appeal. Now the local authority come to this court and say that the Magistrates were wrong to allow the appeal. They say that on points that were not taken before the Magistrates at all. First of all, they say that the provisions of section 60(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 are directory and not mandatory. It reads: "Where a district council suspend, revoke or refuse to renew any licence under this section they shall give to the proprietor of the vehicle notice of the grounds on which the licence has been suspended or revoked or on which they have refused to renew the licence within fourteen days of such suspension, revocation or refusal."

Those are provisions which, as the Magistrates accurately and fairly pointed out, can affect the livelihood of the taxi driver applying for a renewal. They said the object of the provisions appears to be that the proprietor is to be given notice of a decision within a reasonably short period so as to enable him to invoke the appeal procedure without delay and so as to enable him to have early knowledge of whether or not he is able to operate his business.

Further, in my view, it is impossible to read section 60(2) otherwise than as a mandatory requirement because, as well as dealing with the time, it also deals with the question of giving reasons for a decision. In those circumstances, it seems to me clear that it must be construed as mandatory. The local authority contend that the only effect of failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 60(2) is that the whole decision is voidable and that the Magistrates confused two things: the question whether the local authority had arrived at a valid decision and the question whether they had arrived at a decision on the merits. It is said - and I think boldy said - that you cannot question the validity of the decision on an appeal to the Magistrates' Court.

It was not very clear to me how you can effectively question the validity if not on appeal to the Magistrates' Court. But I think that the Magistrates were right for this reason. What they are considering is not the granting of a licence by the local authority, but an action by the local authority in its nature detrimental to the Applicant, that is, the suspension of his licence, the revocation of his licence, or a refusal to renew his licence, all things which are to his detriment and affect a vested right. In my judgment, if the local authority comes to the conclusion that they are going to do one of those three things, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew, then to do that effectively they must comply with the mandatory requirements of section 60(2). If they do not comply with those requirements, it is not a question of the validity or otherwise of their decision; it is a question of whether in fact they have effectively done that which they set out to do, namely, to refuse to renew the licence.

In my judgment, the result of this case is clear, once one has decided, rightly or wrongly - and I hope rightly - that the requirements of section 60(2) are mandatory. What has happened in this case is that the local authority have failed to refuse to renew. They have failed because they did not comply with the requirements of subsection (2). Personally, I do not think that it is a matter of validity or merit; it is a matter of seeing whether the local authority have effectively done that which they are empowered to do under subsection (2). In my judgment they have not.

Further, in my judgment, I think the local authority were taking the only points they could take before the Magistrates, which were certainly the only points they did take. There is no question that the first question of which I am asked, whether the justices were correct in deciding that the notice given to John Robert Monahan by the said council in pursuance of section 60(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 was invalid, was correct. But I think it would be more accurately stated as being: was invalid to constitute a refusal to renew.

The Magistrates made no further orders save to allow the appeal. Having allowed the appeal - and in my judgment properly allowed the appeal - it seems to me that the effect was to reverse the decision of the council in refusing to renew. If you reverse a refusal to renew, the result is that you do renew. In my judgment it was not necessary for the Magistrates to spell out any more than the fact that they had allowed the appeal, because thereafter it was in the terms of section 302, the duty of council to give effect to the order of the court, and in particular to grant or issue any necessary consent certificate or any other document and to make any necessary entry in any register. The document which the council was under a duty to issue was a renewal of the licence.

In those circumstances, I answer the second question in this way. The question is: if they were so correct, whether this enables the justices to allow the appeal of John Robert Monahan and thus enable him to renew his Hackney carriage vehicle licence in question rather than refer the application for renewal to the council for fresh consideration. I answer that question: yes, they were.

In those circumstances, this appeal fails.

DISPOSITION:
Appeal dismissed; Stay of 14 days pending an appeal.

SOLICITORS:
Sharpe Pritchard & Co, agents for P Parkes, Director of Legal Services, Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council; Sinton & Co, Jesmond, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.