Plate premiums likely are protected by the Human Rights Act

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8529

TDO wrote:

MarkRGuildford wrote:

1 What is the citation for the Royden Appeal case? You also say later "Indeed, but he did appeal, perhaps on the basis that many people don't mind seeing others waste huge amounts of money on wild goose chases to test half-baked theories.." Do you mean Royden did appeal or didn't?

What part of "he did appeal" is it that you have a problem with?!?

Seriously though, I'm not sure about the citation, but it defo happened, and it was online at one point, because I recall reading it. It was a good bit shorter than Sir Christopher Bellamy's judgement, fortunately.

Look at this post from six years ago where I refer to the appeal, and also the quote from Derek Cummins of TaxiTalk magazine, who refers to the appeal judges and also the fact that it's a waste of time. And he's very pro-quotas and premiums.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... 9&start=18

There's also a reference to the appeal here:

Quote:

In this regard, the Court of Appeal followed the ruling of Kenneth Parker QC in R (Nicholds) v Security Industry Authority [2007] 1 WLR 2067 concerning licences for club doormen, and also endorsed the judgment of Sir Christopher Bellamy QC in R (Royden) v Wirral MBC [2003] LGR 290, concerning the issuance of new licences for taxi drivers.

http://www.11kbw.com/articles/docs/HumanRights.pdf

Derek Cummings was the main person in taking the Royden case to court.... he was strongly advised not to....

TDO · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:27 am

MarkRGuildford wrote:

2 The license premium is property.

Quote:

32....Property rights arising in licences created by law (enacted or delegated) are subject to...
33. Thus the property right invoked by the Applicants in this case is..... recognised as a valuable property right....

Gorman v. Minister for the Environment and Local Government [2001] IEHC 47; [2001] 2 IR 414 (23rd March, 2001)
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean
3 The questions to be asked
20. It follows from the above that the relevant questions to be asked when considering whether there has been a violation of the right to property guaranteed
by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are:
(i) Is there a property right, or possession, within the scope of Article 1?
(ii) Has there been an interference with that possession?
(iii) Under which of the three rules of Article 1 does the interference fall to be considered?
(iv) Does the interference serve a legitimate objective in the public or general interest?
(v) Is the interference proportionate? That is, does it strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the
requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights?
(vi) Does the interference comply with the principle of legal certainty, or legality?
21. If there has been an interference with a possession, the interference will be incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No.1 if the answer to any one of questions (4) to (6) is “no”.
See section 20 of "The right to property-A guide to the implementation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights" Monica Carss-Frisk http://echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/AFE5CA ... 042003.pdf
4 Any change to policy must be proportionate to the problem addressed, and compensation is payable for the loss of licence value premium. See (v) above: "Is the interference proportionate? That is, does it strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights?"
5 It can fairly be argued that a proportionate change in taxi licence numbers to adequately meet demand could fairly be achieved by a demand survey and controlled issue of new plates.

I'm not sure how regurgitating what you said earlier adds to the discussion, because you merely assert once again that a licence is property and to that extent compensation is payable if the premium is lost.

But clearly the cases cited decided otherwise - including the Irish one, where you again quote out of context - and you've not cited any new evidence suggesting that a case could be won, in my opinion at least.

To reiterate, no one is disputing that a licence can amount to a possession or property and thus protected under ECHR, but the premium is a different matter, and there's no evidence suggesting a premium should be classified as such. The stuff you cite relates to licences per se, not premiums.

TDO · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:29 am

grandad wrote:

I was under the assumption that when someone paid out these sums of money for a plate, they were in fact purchasing a business vehicle and the plate was attached to that vehicle. The extra value attached to the business vehicle would surly be "goodwill".

Well some people might call it goodwill, but it's not goodwill in the normal sense because it depends simply on the restricted market.

As the judge said in the Wirral case:

However, unlike the normal case of "goodwill" as a business asset, this 'premium' does not arise out of the fact that Mr Royden has built up a reputation or has an established clientele, as might be the case of a business such as a restaurant. The 'premium' arises simply because of the restriction on the number of hackney carriages authorised to ply for hire in the Wirral area. In other words, it is simply the reflection of the value of the local monopoly enjoyed by the existing hackney carriage proprietors and drivers.

TDO · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:33 am

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

TDO wrote:

The report of the hardship panel said:

Quote:

The Panel is aware that, since 1992, the Courts have clarified on a number of occasions that there can be no legal duty on the State to compensate taxi licence holders in relation to open market values of licences.

Ah yes; but which Courts?

The Irish courts presumably.

But if you're citing an Irish scenario in support of the situation here then you can't just ignore the court judgements because they're inconvenient, presumably?

The bottom line is that there was no legal obligation for the Irish payments. They were simply an ex gratia hardship fund, thus a moral obligation only.

TDO · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:35 am

MR T wrote:

Derek Cummings was the main person in taking the Royden case to court.... he was strongly advised not to....

Indeed, and you must remember the appeal from the High Court judgement?

Brummie Cabbie · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:00 am

TDO wrote:

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

TDO wrote:

The report of the hardship panel said:

Quote:

The Panel is aware that, since 1992, the Courts have clarified on a number of occasions that there can be no legal duty on the State to compensate taxi licence holders in relation to open market values of licences.

Ah yes; but which Courts?

The Irish courts presumably.

But if you're citing an Irish scenario in support of the situation here then you can't just ignore the court judgements because they're inconvenient, presumably?
The bottom line is that there was no legal obligation for the Irish payments. They were simply an ex gratia hardship fund, thus a moral obligation only.

And that was my point; it was the Irish Courts!!

I wonder whether the European Courts would have had the same angle?

Or was the Irish Government playing a game of double-bluff poker, as far as compensation for loss of plate value was concerned?

Offer compensation, knowing that most people will take 'a bird in the hand' rather than 'two in the bush' and by doing so stave off any European Court action from the proprietors.

TDO · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:45 am

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

And that was my point; it was the Irish Courts!!

I wonder whether the European Courts would have had the same angle?

Or was the Irish Government playing a game of double-bluff poker, as far as compensation for loss of plate value was concerned?

Offer compensation, knowing that most people will take 'a bird in the hand' rather than 'two in the bush' and by doing so stave off any European Court action from the proprietors.

But I wouldn't have thought the pittance offered would have staved off anyone if they thought there was a compelling case under euro law.

But like Mr Guildford you just seem to be clutching at straws without offering anything new.

But if you can think of a new angle then you'd need to take legal advice about it rather than suggesting to readers on here that it might be a goer.

Then again, perhaps the readers on here could prevent others wasting time and money on a wild goose chase.

Brummie Cabbie · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:24 am

TDO wrote:

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

And that was my point; it was the Irish Courts!!

I wonder whether the European Courts would have had the same angle?

Or was the Irish Government playing a game of double-bluff poker, as far as compensation for loss of plate value was concerned?

Offer compensation, knowing that most people will take 'a bird in the hand' rather than 'two in the bush' and by doing so stave off any European Court action from the proprietors.

But I wouldn't have thought the pittance offered would have staved off anyone if they thought there was a compelling case under euro law.

But like Mr Guildford you just seem to be clutching at straws without offering anything new.

But if you can think of a new angle then you'd need to take legal advice about it rather than suggesting to readers on here that it might be a goer.

Then again, perhaps the readers on here could prevent others wasting time and money on a wild goose chase.

You know as well as I do that we are both speculating on what might or might not have happened, could happen or might happen in the future should a case like this be taken to the ECHR!!

And you also know as well as I do, that anyone contemplating such an action would have to have pockets that go underground.

You ascertain that anyone doing so would be foolish and it would cost them an awful lot of money for the exercise, You might be right, but you don't know that.

I believe they may be successful, but I also don't know that.

And until such a case does go to the ECHR, neither of us will be certain of the outcome until it happens and a judgement is handed down.

And we both have as much chance of that happening as you and I getting a pair of knitting needles each and both trying to knit fog!!!

It ain't going to go to the ECHR, because no cabbie could afford it, so all we have left is to speculate.

TDO · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:05 am

Er, well, shouldn't you be saying that to the person who started the thread rather than me? It was Mr R who was advising people to seek counsel's advice.

He made the case on here and to that extent others have proferred their advice, and most seem to think it would be a waste of time, and the case law on the subject supports this. After all, these judges just don't decide these things off the top of their heads, they examine the jurisprudence and come to a decision on that basis.

As for the expense, there are people in the UK with deep pockets who've lost big money on the issue, so I suspect that if there was a prima facie case then it would have been taken to the ECHR, but it hasn't.

Anyway, it's stretching credulity to suggest that someone who's received a free plate can rely on human rights law to stop this plate becoming, er, free.

And since we're always being told how quickly plate purchasers can make their money back it's a bit much to then claim that if it's not a one way bet then it's breaching their human rights :lol:

I'm surprised people aren't arguing that when their horse doesn't win the race then their human rights are being breached because the betting shop doesn't give them their money back.

Governments can't really make regulatory decisions without aggrieving someone somewhere, so if human rights law could be invoked when a regulator actually did something then there would be no point in regulating anything in the first place.

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8529

TDO wrote:

MR T wrote:

Derek Cummings was the main person in taking the Royden case to court.... he was strongly advised not to....

Indeed, and you must remember the appeal from the High Court judgement?

What would have been the outcome if Mr Roydon had purchased his plate before the 1985 Act.... its worth a speculation

TDO · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:11 am

MR T wrote:

What would have been the outcome if Mr Roydon had purchased his plate before the 1985 Act.... its worth a speculation

Problem is that the point in question is only one of many made by the judge in coming to his decision. I doubt if it would have made any difference to the final judgement.

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8529

TDO wrote:

MR T wrote:

What would have been the outcome if Mr Roydon had purchased his plate before the 1985 Act.... its worth a speculation

Problem is that the point in question is only one of many made by the judge in coming to his decision. I doubt if it would have made any difference to the final judgement.

you would say that wouldn't you

still got the old steam driven computer I see :wink:

TDO · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:43 am

MR T wrote:

you would say that wouldn't you

Touche

Quote:

still got the old steam driven computer I see :wink

Well you've lost me there.

MarkRGuildford · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:28 pm

TDO wrote:

There's also a reference to the appeal here:

Quote:

In this regard, the Court of Appeal followed the ruling of Kenneth Parker QC in R (Nicholds) v Security Industry Authority [2007] 1 WLR 2067 concerning licences for club doormen, and also endorsed the judgment of Sir Christopher Bellamy QC in R (Royden) v Wirral MBC [2003] LGR 290, concerning the issuance of new licences for taxi drivers.

http://www.11kbw.com/articles/docs/HumanRights.pdf

Sorry, you appear to be mistaken this link does not include a reference to an Appeal by Royden.

The Human Rights link says "The Court of Appeal overturned the ruling of Collins J that a licence to practice or to carry on a business would ordinarily constitute a “possession” within Article 1P", but that was not the point in question, the property at issue is the licence premium, not the licence itself.

Further, there is no report that I can find of an appeal for the Royden case. When you say there is an Appeal you should show the citation.

Sussex · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:31 pm

MarkRGuildford wrote:

Further, there is no report that I can find of an appeal for the Royden case. When you say there is an Appeal you should show the citation.

I remember reading it, as it wasn't that long.

But like my good friend Mr TDO I can't find it either. :-k

Taxi Driver Online

Plate premiums likely are protected by the Human Rights Act

Who is online