Taxi Driver Online

Oi, what you doing with my avatar?

Have a read of this old thread.

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=1148

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I think it's because Mr Cummings pi**ed them off.

_________________
IDFIMH

You won't get this case anywhere else but on TDO. The judgement is short but to the point and confirms the basic points laid out in the article in this thread.

Regards

JD


R (on the application of Cummings) v Cardiff County Council


COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL DIVISION
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS MR, BUXTON AND SCOTT BAKER LJJ
11 JULY 2005
[2005] All ER (D) 115 (Jul)

Road traffic – Hackney carriage – Licence – Grant of licence – Whether judge entitled to find defendant’s decision to delimit number of hackney carriage licences lawful.

The defendant local authority had the power to grant licences for hackney carriages to ply for trade in the Cardiff area. The claimant was the proprietor or part-proprietor of 12% of the companies operating taxis in Cardiff. In January 2003, the defendant’s Licensing and Public Protection Committee decided to issue a further six hackney carriage licences, to be allocated on the basis of a lottery.

The claimant applied for judicial review of that decision, on the ground that a waiting list should have been used as a basis for issuing the licences. The defendant’s committee thereafter resolved to defer the lottery in the light of the intended application for judicial review.

In October 2003, following a period of consultation, the defendant’s committee decided to de-restrict the number of licences altogether. That decision to remove the limit on the number of licences had the effect of ending the second-hand market in licences, which was said to be worth £20,000 per licence.

The claimant made a further application for judicial review in respect of the defendant’s October decision, contending that the defect in the January decision had tainted the October decision. The judge found that whilst there had been no safe foundation on which a waiting list system could have been rejected for the purpose of allocating new licences, it had not been irrational to use a lottery system.

Further, the judge found that since the January decision had already been rescinded, it had not been relevant to the October decision to de-limit the licences. The judge therefore dismissed the applications for judicial review. The claimant appealed against the judge’s conclusion in respect of the October decision.

The appeal would be dismissed.
The judge had been entitled to come to the conclusion he had.

In respect of the October decision to delimit the number of licences, there was nothing the defendant had taken into account which it should not have, and nothing it had left out of its reasoning which it should have considered. Accordingly, that decision had been entirely rational and one which the defendant had been fully entitled to reach.

Decision of Moses J [2004] All ER (D) 376 (Oct) affirmed.


Michael Bromley-Martin QC and Nik Yeo (instructed by Dolmans) for the claimant.

Graham Walters (instructed by Stephanie King Davies) for the defendant.

............................................................................................................