Taxi Driver Online

Maybe it's just me, but I was totally unaware of this case, and can't find any mention of it on here.

But quite an interesting and important case, in that it's basically about a council cock-up which led to the claimant wasting money on a vehicle which didn't meet the WAV spec, so he then had to plate it PHV

But he sued the council, and was initially awarded substantial damages for 'psychiatric injury'...

But that was overturned on appeal a few years ago.

He then took other legal action claiming this, that and the next thing, but that's just been dismissed by a judge, who's basically saying he's now cutting his own throat and costing the taxpayer money.

But in terms of the legal principles and what he's been claiming, it's all very messy...

First article is from 2022 and is about the initial award of damages and subsequent appeal.

Second piece was published today, and it's about his subsequent and ill-fated claims against the council.


No duty owed to taxi driver

07.Oct.2022

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk ... axi-driver

A council has won an appeal in the High Court in a psychiatric injury claim brought by a taxi driver. David Green explains why.

Bourne J this month handed down judgment in Arshad v Wokingham District Council [2022] EWHC 2419 (KB).

Background

The Claimant, Mr Arshad, was a hackney carriage driver. He was required to buy a new vehicle to ply for hire. After an informal inquiry to Wokingham’s licensing department, he was (erroneously) advised that a particular vehicle would be licensable under the council’s disabled access policy.

Unfortunately it was not, and shortly after licensing the new vehicle, Wokingham inspected it (after receiving complaints) and took steps to remove Mr Arshad’s licence. He subsequently converted his licence to a private hire licence, where the disability access condition did not apply.

Mr Arshad, a litigant in person, presented claims of religious discrimination, negligence, and breach of duty against Wokingham. He alleged that he had suffered various financial losses, and a psychiatric injury. He also sought aggravated and exemplary damages.

In the Oxford County Court, HHJ Melissa Clarke allowed the claim. She held that Wokingham’s advice was a negligent misstatement, per Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, HL; that a duty was owed by Wokingham to Mr Arshad; and that it was reasonably foreseeable that a threat to a taxi driver’s livelihood might cause upset, and thereby a psychiatric injury.

While most of Mr Arshad’s specific heads of loss failed on the evidence, he did establish that he had suffered a psychiatric injury, and so recovered general damages of £42,500, plus £290 for prescriptions and miscellaneous expenses.

Appeal

Wokingham appealed to the High Court.

Bourne J considered a number of requirements for the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence. In particular, it was necessary for Mr Arshad to show that a psychiatric injury was specifically foreseeable (since he was not a primary victim), applying the principle of Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613, CA, and mindful of the policy considerations set out in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455, HL. Even serious threats to individuals’ careers are not sufficient to establish foreseeability without something more specific (Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1512).

Applying the required level of analysis to the facts, psychiatric harm was not specifically foreseeable: since this is an essential element of the duty of care, no duty in negligence was owed by Wokingham to Mr Arshad. The appeal therefore succeeded, and Mr Arshad’s claim was dismissed.

Analysis

Cases about the existence of a duty of care in negligence are relatively rare, since most negligence arises in circumstances where the duty of care position is well established.

However, in Arshad, the parties were in a relatively novel relationship (at least in duty of care terms): Mr Arshad was Wokingham’s licensee, and Wokingham was exercising statutory functions in pursuit of certain policy aims.

While these considerations alone would not have been enough for a duty of care to have been avoided, for psychiatric injuries in particular the foreseeability requirement operates somewhat differently depending on the relationship between the parties. In particular, there are “control mechanisms” on foreseeability for secondary victims which do not exist for primary victims; and the duties owed to other common categories of victim, such as employees and rescuers, and subtly different again.

The review of the venerable authorities in Arshad illustrates the fact that there is at least a search for principle in these seemingly arbitrary categories, and that a court considering a psychiatric injury claim in a novel category is required to consider the reasons for the current legal taxonomy in order to derive the applicable principles.

David Green is a barrister at 12KBW. He represented Wokingham Borough Council at first instance and on appeal, instructed by Tom Challis of Weightmans.

Judge strikes out taxi driver’s fraud claims against law firm

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-n ... t-law-firm

The High Court has struck out a taxi driver’s fraud and harassment claims against a council and its law firm as “totally devoid of merit”.

Master Fontaine said she had “no jurisdiction” to impose a civil restraint order on Muhammad Arshad, as sought by Wokingham Council and law firm Weightmans, but would refer the matter to another judge.

She said it was “apparent from the procedural history of this matter” that Mr Arshad had “not been able to accept” a successful appeal by the council to the High Court.

Mr Arshad was awarded damages of £42,500 for psychiatric injury by Oxford County Court in 2021 after the council suspended and later revoked his Hackney carriage licence.

Master Fontaine said the taxi driver had “devised ever-increasing methods to circumvent the decision” of Mr Justice Bourne to allow the council’s appeal.

“I understand that this must have been a very disappointing decision for him, particularly after the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke which although dismissing some of his claims, awarded him a relatively substantial sum.

“However, it will not, in my view, assist him to continue to pursue a claim that has been determined where doing so is likely to put him further out of pocket by costs awards being made against him.

“It is also unfair that the defendants, particularly Wokingham, funded as it is by the public purse, should have to fund the continuing costs of opposing this claim and the many applications brought by the claimant.”

Mr Arshad, who represented himself in the hearing before Master Fontaine, launched fresh claims against both the council and Weightmans in June 2025.

These included false representation, concealment, fundamental dishonesty and abuse of position.

Master Fontaine said the fraud claims against the council showed “no reasonable grounds for being made” and were an abuse of process

A claim of misfeasance in public office was also made against Wokingham, along with harassment and human rights violations, all of which were rejected by Master Fontaine.

The judge said it was “impossible to identify what claims the claimant could properly make” against Weightmans.

“I draw the same conclusions in relation to the fraud and harassment claims as I do in relation to the same claim against Wokingham, namely that they show no reasonable grounds for being made, are an abuse of process, and fail to comply with the requirements of the CPR and the order of Master Eastman.

“The claims for misfeasance in public office and under the Human Rights Act, could not be made against the second defendant, a private limited partnership, and fall to be struck out on the same grounds.”

So it's all very messy, but it's a question occasionally posed on here - does the council owe any liability to licensees if they cock up or misrepresent things and licensees are out of pocket as a consequence?

Difficult to conclude anything definitely in that regard just by reading the stuff above, and it's all very messy.

But it's one of those where he's throwing everything in and hoping some of it will stick. I mean, like 'religious discrimination'

Or 'misfeasance in public office' - I think that's the same thing that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and/or Peter Mandelson are being accused of, essentially (or they're being accused of a criminal offence, while the claimant's here would have been a civil matter). But a very high bar to clear in legal terms, I suspect.

Also, the stuff about "false representation, concealment, fundamental dishonesty and abuse of position", makes it sound like the council is being accused of lying, basically. Again, a very high bar to clear, I'd guess, and basic council cock-up rather than conspiracy seems a more likely scenario.

(The giveaway in the second case is perhaps that he represented himself - maybe he couldn't even get a lawyer to take his case on. But the judge certainly sounds sympathetic to a degree, and basically warning him that he's cutting his own throat by proceeding with it all

Not sure if that's some kind of 'vexatious litigant' thing, or similar. But basically seems to be saying that he needs to be saved from himself, and the council and legal firm need to be saved from him as well

There a link to the judgment in the second article, but it's marked 'not found'.

But this seems to be it here. It's on the short side, but the initial case linked to in the first article is a significantly longer read

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.c ... 6/407.html

this sounds like one of those cases where both parties are probably the losers as the costs of the case probably wipe out any benefits

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

In my view, they most certainly do.

What a sensible council would do, IMO should do, in a similar situation is to admit they messed up, we all do from time to time, and allow the driver to keep his vehicle licensed until the vehicle is no longer licensed.

If the council had done that, then none of the legal aggro, which I suspect has cost the council the best part of £30,000, would have happened.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, he was chucking bucket loads of sh** at the wall in the vain hope some of it stuck.

_________________
IDFIMH