Taxi Driver Online

Only on Sundays.

_________________
IDFIMH

What was the reason for Mr Holmes not getting his plate when his appeal was successful? There was no decision of deferment by the judge although from what I know about the case that is what appears to have happened.

Regards

JD

As I think you well understand, the law is not always black and white, the judge ruled that sefton council was wrong to refuse him a plate, (which was his case) but the court did not have the power to instruct sefton to give him one only to say sefton was wrong.

sefton then had a survey which said there were 4 plates too many, armed with this sefton continued with it's policy of restriction,

you must remember sefton had been de-reg before and had re-regulated because of the mess it caused mrT...

Clearly the court viewed the case similar to Kelly, but what differs (from my point of view) Holmes to Kelly, is that in Kelly he wasn't the only person applying, so the judge didn't want to get involved in who had the better case to get a plate between him and Mr Smith.

In Holmes the judge had only one person before him, so IMHO he should have given the plate(s) to him.

_________________
IDFIMH

.

They may, on the other hand, consider on the basis of what that survey tells them that there may need to be more licenses, we know not. Equally, they might decide to deregulate, but that again is not for us to say. We are certainly not intending to encourage one course or the other.

I do not know whether this particular appellant is a suitable or unsuitable person for the task. We have been told what the issue is and we have stuck to it, I hope.
MR BAKER: Your Honour, of course, yes mrT

But the judge wasn't there to decide if the mush was pukka or not, he was there to decide on the issuing of vehicle licenses.

As Mr Holmes was the only applicant, and the council couldn't prove SUD, then he should have got his plates.

But then what do I know.

_________________
IDFIMH

NO the judge was not there to decide if the mush got a plate or not , he was there to decide if sefton had the right to say NO ...mrT p.s I give up you have won..

When you first posted the case in its entirety you said there was a page missing? Is that still the case?

The Judge did have the power to grant Holmes a license but it seems what happened here was that even though the Judge Granted the appeal it seems he also gave Sefton time to have a survey before they determined if there was unmet demand. It seams ludicrous that the Judge could allow the appeal then turn around and say Sefton can defer the applicant until they have measured demand.

JUDGE DUNCAN:
This appeal by Malcolm Holmes against the decision of the Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council to refuse his application for a hackney carriage licence has been heard by my colleagues and myself over three part days and there has been (as so often is the case where there is a small gap between hearings) a shift in emphasis and further evidence has been called, but at the end of the day my colleagues and I have been able to come to a decision.

There is no doubt Mr Holmes is the appellant.


So we accordingly allow the appeal. We hope that that does not trigger in the local authority a reversal of their present careful policy of considering matters and we hope they do conduct a survey and continue to strive to manage matters in a way best suited for all those citizens, taxi drivers included, but that is a mere hope and is nothing to do with our decision.

There is no doubt the appeal was granted. There is also no doubt Mr Holmes was awarded costs.

My understanding from someone who was involved in the case was that the council did not technically refuse Mr Holmes a license and this enabled them to determine the application after having a survey but the case reads different. There would appear to be something missing from the transcript because it gives no mention of options open to the council such as deferment or waiting list?

As I said, I was told it was based as a deferment but there is nothing in the transcript to suggest that.

Regards

JD

You have what I have page 1 to 23 ,if mr holmes was not refused a

license then why did he take sefton to court (technically or not )mrT..

We quite appreciate that the appellant does not automatically get on to the bandwagon of getting a licence, so to that extent he has acted not immediately selfishly.

Why have other past applicants taken a council to court when they haven't been refused a license? If you knew who the interested party is that I referred to it might surprise you.

However for what its worth, on my part the Transcript seems to be lacking a vital ingredient and that is the reason why Mr Holmes wasn't granted his license even though he won his appeal.

One wonders what else the Judgement entailed that might be missing from the Transcript?

Regards

JD

Maybe he had a bad solicitor ring john you have his number..mrT

JUDGE DUNCAN: Yes, I am sure efforts can be made along those lines. The combined costs would have gone a long way towards this survey, and the only people who would have been at a disadvantage would have been the lawyers, which would have pleased everybody I would have thought.

J.D Mr Holmes was refused a license(no unmet demand) and that was straight from the horses mouth....mrT...

Thank you for that MR T.

I know he never got his license, it was the facts surrounding the court case which was of interest to myself and I would suggest many others. I can't get away from the following passages of the transcript, which suggest whatever Mr Holmes was appealing against, he won?

However there is no need to spend anymore time on it because it might confuse us even more. Thank you once again for posting it.

Regards

JD

The situation here, as my colleagues and I understand it, is that if we allow this appeal the local authority have a number of choices and it is not for us in any way to say which of those choices they should follow. They may conduct a survey which may support their present position and they may then be able to resist a further application on the basis of an up to date survey.

They may, on the other hand, consider on the basis of what that survey tells them that there may need to be more licenses, we know not. Equally, they might decide to deregulate, but that again is not for us to say. We are certainly not intending to encourage one course or the other.

We are unanimously of the view that we cannot rely on the 1990 survey as evidence for 1999/2000 so as to enable the local authority to prove that there is no significant unmet demand. We do not know whether there is a significant unmet demand. We are quite satisfied from the evidence that we have heard that whilst there has been a tremendous change in use, and that change in use has worked generally against hackney carriages, that there has round the country nevertheless been in almost every local authority area an increase in hackney carriage licences, and we accept Mr Baker's assertion, unchallenged as it was, and which is why I went into some detail in the Gayfor case, that in almost every case there have been, where there have been challenges, recent surveys upon which a local authority could base its case, if I can put it that way.

I and my colleagues are not suggesting that every authority should go to the enthusiastic lengths that Manchester does, which apparently has a survey every year, but that is a far cry from not having a survey for a decade.

But we cannot be sure about that, which is why the burden of course is on the local authority to show that there is no significant unmet demand, and that we can be sure they have not shown. So we accordingly allow the appeal. We hope that that does not trigger in the local authority a reversal of their present careful policy of considering matters and we hope they do conduct a survey and continue to strive to manage matters in a way best suited for all those citizens, taxi drivers included, but that is a mere hope and is nothing to do with our decision.

We quite appreciate that the appellant does not automatically get on to the bandwagon of getting a licence, so to that extent he has acted not immediately selfishly.
.............................................................................................................

J.D. Sometimes in court you can win, and when you walk outside you wonder what it is that you have won...mrT

What the judge should have done before the hearing was ask what everyone was there for.

By the way Mr Holmes defense team acted when they got no plates, it seems that they weren't that surprised by the out-come. Thus they should have said to the council before the hearing, you survey and we will settle as we are.

Maybe the hearing really didn't concern the issuing of plates, but just (indirectly) dealt with who was going to pay the accured legal bills, and Mr Holmes didn't quite realise that.

But is that me just being cynical?

_________________
IDFIMH