Taxi Driver Online

I think some people just appeal for the sake of appealing regardless of their chance of winning. Here's such a case in point. The sad part about this appeal is that the claimants were at sixes and sevens right from the word go. They manifestly got their facts wrong and failed to grasp the legal standing the council has when it comes to making decisions such as these. It is no wonder the application for judicial was thrown out.


R (on the application of Aujla and others) v Slough Borough Council

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
GOULDRING J
13 JULY 2005
[2005] All ER (D) 162 (Jul)

Pleading – Amendment – Claim form – Judicial review – Claim originally alleging members of defendant local authority present at meeting – Claim based on factual error – Claimants applying to amend claim form to plead members’ presence at earlier meeting – Whether amendment should be permitted.

In 1976, the defendant local authority restricted the number of hackney carriage licences in its area to 66. No additional licences were issued between that date and the meeting the subject of the proceedings. A proposal to remove the numerical limit was considered by the authority’s licensing committee on 9 August 2004.

The committee heard representations from interested parties including the claimants, and considered a lengthy report prepared by its officers. On 12 October, the authority considered a recommendation from the committee that hackney carriage licences be delimited. It heard further representations from interested parties. It resolved that the licences should be delimited, with a condition that required wheelchair accessibility for all new licences.

The claimants applied for judicial review of that decision, contending that, although it was a decision that the authority had been lawfully entitled to reach, in the circumstances it was tainted by bias and irrationality. They relied on the fact that two councillors, B and H, had previously been holders of hackney carriage licences.

They obtained permission to apply for judicial review on the ground of bias only. The authority pointed out that B and H were not present at the 12 October meeting of the authority. The claimants therefore applied to amend their claim to contend that B and H had been present at the 9 August meeting, and should have recused themselves.

The authority objected to the application to amend, on the grounds, inter alia, that the point sought to be raised had been known all along, and that the claimants had been involved in the decision process from an early stage, making submissions, but had not objected at the time.

The application would be dismissed.

There was no justification for allowing the proposed amendment, and the claim would have failed on the merits in any event.

The challenge to the decision was eleven months old. The point sought to be raised by the amendment could have been taken long ago. At least one of the claimants had been at both the meeting in August and the meeting in October. No objection to B and H had been made at that time. The delay would cause the authority prejudice. In any event, there was nothing in the allegation that either B or H might be biased and, further, the authority would in all probability have reached the same decision in any event. The decision was not made at the meeting of the committee in August, but rather that of the authority in October. It did not simply follow the recommendation of the committee, but considered oral and written submissions and evidence.

Peter Maddox (instructed by Kearns & Co, Swansea) for the claimants.
Philip Kolvin (instructed by Steven Quayle) for the authority.
......................................................................................

what a good idea.
go to court complaining about two councillors that werent even involved in the final decision.
Thick as pigs poo.

Glad to see that Kearns and Co are happy to take taxi drivers money to fight such a pointless case for them.

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

A vaild point indeed.

I suppose a 'no win no fee' option wasn't available.

_________________
IDFIMH

did a job to Slough, this evening, they were trying to flag me down.

So much for deregulation means more cars on the road.

One minute your saying you want all councils to stop lifting numbers because the job will go down the pan, next minute you imply lifting numbers in slough has made no difference whatsoever?

Maybe this is the ideal response jimbo was looking for in the other thread?

JD

If that is the case, then you have to wonder what existing plate-holders have to fear.

_________________
IDFIMH

you guys have a habit of twisting my words, where do I say anything about the council? it was an observation, you do know what that is do you?

So you got flagged down in slough last night, is that ground breaking news? I got flagged down all over the place and I'm sure others did too, but what significance can you place on that?

Because someone stuck their hand out on a Friday night you instantly draw the conclusion that deregulating numbers in slough hasn't made an impact on the service to the public?

Theres nothing wrong with forming that opinion but to base it on one isolated flag down is hardly a full apraisal of the overal situation in Slough. If you got flagged down in Swindon would you say deregualtion hadn't made a difference?

I wouldn't know if it had or it hadn't made a difference in Slough but then perhaps I'm not as qualified as you to make that assesment.

Regards

JD

in the town centre, where all the kebab shops are, at around 2:30 am, loads of people wanting taxis, you know peak hour.....

I'm not surprised de-regulation has'nt provided more Taxi's in Slough.

You would have to be a hard man to drive a Cab in Slough!

Rough!

The full text of the judgement is now out.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /1866.html

_________________
IDFIMH

Love this bit, just love it.

"It is a fact that before he was elected, councillor Butt used to campaign for the private hire trade. He used to attend consultative meetings of the Council, and at one meeting shouted slogans in Urdu such as 'private hire zinibad', which means 'long live private hire'.

_________________
IDFIMH

Clutching at straws no doubt. However the references to bias must be noted in respect of Edinburgh and any other council who approaches this issue with a closed mind.

Regards

JD

after all that.
now the laDS have to pay £20,000 costs fighting a lost cause.
i thought that kerans lot knew what they where doing.