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”.

But nobody denied Mr Royden the rights to his property, or the peaceful enjoyment of the property?

128 On the analysis so far, we are left with the possibility of a rather hard to define "interference" with property, contrary to the general rule in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1, which is neither a "deprivation", nor the "control of the use" of property. Although I accept that, conceptually speaking, one can envisage a residual category of "interference with property" which is neither deprivation nor control of use, it seems to me that in such a case the nature of the "interference with property" alleged should be analysed closely in order to determine whether it really is a matter within the ambit of Article 1 of the First Protocol.

(ii) Has there been an interference with that possession?

That is the question the law requires to be asked. Obviously there was interference in the premium value of the licence, which is a property. The Judge accepted that at:

True, but it was countered at 135 & 136 with;

..... In my view in law Mr Royden could not, after 1999, have reasonably or legitimately expected that this "windfall" was protected against the possibility of "de-restriction" under the Act of 1847 as amended. [/i]

CC

That is where the Judge was unsupported by any precedent. He created (made up) a "windfall" class of property not protected by the Act. The Act itself makes no such stipulation. Obviously, at any time the value of ones property can be wiped out by legislative act, that is precisely what the Human Rights Act is there to prevent.

I think he basically suggested that after the 1985 transport act buying a plate was a gamble, prior to that not so.

I don't think that position has changed any.

That being said, I dont think he's saying you cant sell a plate in a delimited market.....its just that no one will want to buy it

Can you point me to the bit of any act which says a taxi plate is a personal posession?

Likewise, can you tell me which councils say restriction is illegal?

CC

CC you missed out the question can a plate that belongs to and issued by the licencing authority be legally sold on its own

CC you missed out the question can a plate that belongs to and issued by the licencing authority be legally sold on its own

York vs. Warriner
CC

This thread should be very interesting
In the Blue corners TDOs CC in the red The barrack room lawyer

Can you point me to the bit of any act which says a taxi plate is a personal posession?

CC

In making that distinction, Jonathan Parker LJ, with whom Ward LJ and Harrison J agreed, noted (at [41]) that in licence cases 'the economic interests which derive from the grant of such a licence may fall to be treated as, in effect, rights of property'. The corollary of that reasoning would appear to be that the licence itself is not the 'possession' and that whether the economic interests that flow from it are a possession depends on the facts, one of which may be the marketable goodwill that can flow from the exercise of a licensed trade, in effect, the Van Marle or the Tre Traktörer type of case.

Throw this thread into the Scottish section and things could become really interesting