Taxi Driver Online

If anyone knows who gave the "wrong" higher legal opinion to Doncaster council, can you please let us know. Just out of interest?

Regards

JD

____________________


THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HEATH v DONCASTER METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Queen's Bench Division

[2001] LLR 632

HEARING-DATES: 16 October 2000

16 October 2000

HEADNOTE:

Mr Heath was the holder of a hackney carriage licence and a hackney carriage driver's licence. He had a contract with Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council to take a particular child to a particular school each day. Following a trade complaint the council took legal advice and advised taxi drivers that in order to carry out a private hire contract they had to hold a private hire operator's licence. In order to continue working under local authority contracts taxi drivers in Doncaster were informed that they would either have to apply for a private hire operator's licence or to pass their contract to such a licence holder and work under that person's operator's licence. The reason was said to be that if the driver fell ill he would not be able to subcontract to another driver whilst the holder of a private hire operator's licence would be able to do so. Mr Heath challenged the council's decision by making an application for judicial review.

Held - the council's position was unlawful. If the applicant were to permit or employ another hackney carriage licensed driver to drive his taxi that was countenanced by s 48 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. Moreover, if the applicant were to cause another hackney carriage licensed driver to use that person's licensed hackney carriage in performance of the applicant's contract there was no statutory prohibition, whether by reference to s 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous provisions) Act 1976 or otherwise.

NOTES:
Statutory provisions considered

Town Police Clauses Act 1847, ss 45, 46

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, ss 46, 47, 48, 51, 55, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, (1), 80(1)

COUNSEL:
Clive Lewis for the applicant; Carol McMillan for the respondent

PANEL: Maurice Kay J

JUDGMENTBY-1: MAURICE KAY J

JUDGMENT-1:

MAURICE KAY J: [1] This is an application for judicial review. The applicant has a hackney carriage licence and a hackney carriage driver's licence issued by the respondent licensing authority, ('the council'). He also has a contract with the council under which he takes a particular child to a nearby school each school day. That contract is due to expire on 6 April 2001.

[2] The decision which has given rise to the present application is that which is manifested in a letter from the council to the applicant's solicitors dated 21 December 1999. The history goes back a little further than that. On 18 August 1999 the council wrote to the applicant about a complaint that had been made 'from within the hackney carriage trade' that the council was acting unlawfully by insisting that hackney carriage associations and companies must hold private hire operators licences in order to carry out contracts. That letter said:

'As a result of this complaint, a higher legal opinion was sought to fully clarify the situation. The legal opinion given clearly supports our actions, and as a result, I am writing to you to formally inform you that to carry out a private hire contact as a hackney carriage owner, you must hold a private hire operators licence.
______________________

I'm glad you showed them the error of their ways? However, as you and I both know, a person less able than yourself may have resigned themselves to believing that the councils opinion was right? Which sadly history is full of casualties from councils misinterpretation of the law.

Regards

JD