Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - William Atwell Kelly

I believe the Kelly verdict to be eroneous and that Scotland have it exactly right and the justices in the Kelly case have it completely wrong.

J.D.
MR Kelly is the real reason that the wirral de-reg .did you not know mrT p.s. Mr Kelly usually represents himself :wink:

SUSSEX For once you have me at a disadvantage, when was he paid the 500,000 pounds he was sueing the council for...mrt... :roll:

NO, NO, NO, SUSSEX HE LOST THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS but you know best...mrT.. :wink:

No winners sussex, Just drivers paying for cabs that been repossessed, but that does not interest you does it..mrT :wink:

J.D.
MR Kelly is the real reason that the Wirral de-reg .did you not know mrT p.s. Mr Kelly usually represents himself :wink:

I tell them that this a good way of making a living if you work HARD, then I tell them to form their own opinion of the job and not to lissten to the bull s**t some drivers talk,but most inportantly I tell them to drive somebody else's cab/car till they make their own mind up, but I suppose I have got that wrong...mrT :roll:

Author:	JD [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:54 am ]
Post subject:	William Atwell Kelly
When William Atwell Kelly applied to Wirral council for ten licenses back in 1993 little did he know that he was about to make legal history. For those who aren't familiar with Mr Kelly? He was refused ten licenses by Wirral Council back in 1993 on the grounds of no unmet demand. Just how Wirral council came to that decision without having a survey is beyond me. However, it just proves what contempt these councils have for natural justice and the law. It is my contention that Councils never let the law get in the way of their preferred policy. 1996 saw the culmination of Mr Kellys appeal IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION). What transpired was a travesty of justice, all established case law prior to this case appertaining to hackney carriage license appeals was completley disregarded. Before the Kelly case it was established that a council who wasn't in possesion of evidence of unmet demand cannot refuse a license in respect of section 16 of the 1985 Transport act. The kelly case established that where a court has determined that demand exists a council may choose the way it distributes any knew licenses. I believe the Kelly verdict to be eroneous and that Scotland have it exactly right and the justices in the Kelly case have it completely wrong. At the moment there is a challenge taking place in Trafford which I hope will ultimately reset the balance. Regards JD

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: William Atwell Kelly
JD wrote: I believe the Kelly verdict to be eroneous and that Scotland have it exactly right and the justices in the Kelly case have it completely wrong. I agree, this judgement is a godsend for lazy councils, and lazy drivers that let them get away with doing nothing.

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:28 pm ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: J.D. MR Kelly is the real reason that the wirral de-reg .did you not know mrT p.s. Mr Kelly usually represents himself Yes but we was talking about the judgement not the mush himself. But you are spot on, Mr Kelly lost that battle, but, as you know, he won the war.

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: SUSSEX For once you have me at a disadvantage, when was he paid the 500,000 pounds he was sueing the council for...mrt... I'm assuming never. But he lost the battle for a plate or two, but he won the war and can now have thousands. As of course can any other 'fit and proper' person.

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: NO, NO, NO, SUSSEX HE LOST THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS but you know best...mrT.. Well if a boss loses 1000s and 1000s but the winners are new plate-holders, then I can live with that.

Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

William Atwell Kelly http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2509	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:46 am ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: No winners sussex, Just drivers paying for cabs that been repossessed, but that does not interest you does it..mrT Your starting to sound like the plank, "do as I say, not as I do". I find it best for drivers themselves to choose what they wish to do, and if they make a mistake then that's down to them. You would much rather they didn't have the choice.

Author:	JD [ Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:57 am ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: J.D. MR Kelly is the real reason that the Wirral de-reg .did you not know mrT p.s. Mr Kelly usually represents himself It would appear Mr Kelly does indeed represent himself but it would also appear that financially it hasn't brought him much success. I think you will probably have noticed that the Wirral and Cardiff situations are not dissimilar. Many people don't realise that when councils are confronted with a single application for a large number of licenses and they face a legal challenge that might go against them, they more often than not end up doing what the Wirral, Cardiff and Dundee did. I am more concerned about the legal judgement of the Kelly case, which I believe is still in the balance. We shall see how the bench interprets Kelly in the coming cases in Trafford and Plymouth? Mr Kelly is from your neck of the woods and I do not know a great deal about him, except for his exploits in the courts. Regards JD

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: I tell them that this a good way of making a living if you work HARD, then I tell them to form their own opinion of the job and not to lissten to the bull s**t some drivers talk,but most inportantly I tell them to drive somebody else's cab/car till they make their own mind up, but I suppose I have got that wrong...mrT And once they have got a taste for it you try to sell them a £20/30/40,000 plate.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/