|
Here is a more detailed construction of this case and quite frankly one which the extremely competent legal high flyer Peter Maddox probably new he couldn't win. Maddox is one of the leading Taxi licensing briefs in the country and he comes thoroughly recommended.
_________________________
R (on the application of Nemeth) v West Berkshire District Council
Road traffic – Hackney carriage – Licence – Applicant licence holder seeking judicial review of change of licence policy – Whether local authority creating legitimate expectation – Whether local authority taking into account impact of new policy on applicant – Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s 37.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
HUNT J
8 DECEMBER 2000
P Maddox for the Claimant
P Harrison for the Defendant
Kearns & Co, Swansea; Legal Department, West Berkshire District Council
HUNT J
[1] This is a judgment in the case of R v West Berkshire District Council, ex parte Rodney James Nemeth. This claimant was granted permission by Mr Justice Keene as he then was on 16 October to seek judicial review of the defendant's action on two grounds, namely:
(1) whether the committee failed to take into account the potential impact of the new arrangements on the claimant; and
(2) whether the claimant had a substantial, legitimate expectation that the manner in which the additional five plates were issued in 1997 would not be altered without good reason.
[2] This claimant is a Hackney carriage driver. In 1997 he was issued with one of five additional licences to operate in the town of Newbury. The defendants had a restriction in place which did not make the provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles a pre-requisite for a licence but they operated a points system for applicants, a points system which I find gave such a high number of points to those who had such a vehicle that in practice anyone without the same had little or no chance of obtaining such a licence. In fact all five additional licences went to the owners of such vehicles, which involved them in an increased capital outlay.
[3] The claimant says he had a legitimate expectation from statements made, from the conduct on allocation and from documents, some of which undoubtedly give the mistaken impression that it was a condition, a pre-requisite, for such a licence that wheelchair access be available - from these, he said he had the legitimate expectation of a substantial benefit that, in the absence of any other overriding consideration, future licences to deal with unmet demand would be issued on the same basis as in 1997.
[4] What in fact happened is that the defendants in the summer of this year have changed their policy. Instead of restricting numbers in the town zone with criteria aimed at ensuring that some newly licensed vehicles are disabled access vehicles, the council has changed its policy, following an expert's report, to one of deregulation of the limits on numbers, to be phased in over a three and a half year period. In short, there is to be a larger pool but growing slowly with recognition that the objective is to have as many of that pool being disabled access vehicles, but the expansion is such is that this may not happen immediately. It is, however, to be required by the end of that three and a half year period, that is by 2004.
[5] It is recognised that this change of policy disadvantages the claimant in terms of both competition and the outlay already spent on a more expensive vehicle.
[6] Was there a legitimate expectation that the 1997 policy would remain in force for any particular length of time or beyond the next review? Was there an alleged conduct of the council such as to lead to such legitimate expectation? I find there was not. It was clear from the 1997 report that the defendants could review the policy at any time. It was clear from a later meeting with the Hackney Owners' Association in January 1998 that the defendants were not saying a change such as that now agreed could not happen. Plainly, the council said its committee could not bind the future policy, nor did they seek to say they could.
[7] I find that there had been no promise made or assurance given to the claimant, and certainly none in the nature of an agreement or contract such as operated in the case of R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2000] 3 All ER 850, [2000] 2 WLR 622, in which case there were statements, conduct and a letter in unqualified terms.
[8] This claimant made a sensible commercial decision in 1997 and has operated in the light of that. Having had the option, he bought a new vehicle, not a secondhand one, and has no doubt benefitted to date from that. The defendants are now changing the status quo, as they must in law, to meet the unmet demand which has now been ascertained. They were entitled to do what they have done. The claimant's complaint is, I find, in reality about deregulation and numbers. The defendants illustrate this by the fact that, when their first stance in June was deregulation and all new licences to be disabled access vehicles, it was opposed by the claimant.
[9] It is plain that in this case there was consultation between June and 3 July. It is plain that the committee were aware of the previous policy and the taxi drivers' position and they considered it. A number of options were open to the committee, and in choosing option 5, but expanding slowly, the committee have continued the objective of having as many as possible suitably adapted vehicles but phasing them in. In short, the requirement to consider the policy and consult properly, including taking into account the taxi drivers' position before changing the policy, has been met.
[10] I find that the expectation is not established nor has the council's conduct amounted to an abuse of power.
[11] I turn to the alleged failure to take into consideration in particular the impact of the changes in policy on the claimant and the other four in a similar position who took up the 1997 licences.
[12] It is plain that there were two discussions between June and 3 July meetings, and the minutes of 3 July meeting recognised the difficulties of increased numbers for the trade. In addition, the individual councillors had received a letter from the claimant personally, it is correct to say that it was before the June meeting, setting out his case, including in particular the large investment made by those who had taken the previous five plates.
[13] It is also correct that the specific complaint he now makes was not spelt out on 3 July, although I find as a fact that the members would be aware of it through his letter in June. However, he was present on 3 July at the meeting and did not ask to speak to put the case as now presented, although he could have asked to do so if he wished. In addition, the members of the town association were represented and they declined an invitation to speak.
[14] I find that it is not now open to the claimant to say that the point was not before the committee when he could easily have emphasised it if he felt that they were unaware of it. In addition, as I have already found, they were individually aware of it in any event and cannot have failed to take it into account.
[15] It follows from the above that this application must fail.
___________________________
|
Login
Register
FAQ
