Taxi Driver Online

illegal plying for hire cases such as Woodings and Eastbourne, etc are well known but there are many that are not, such as this one from 1962.
....................................................................
Alker v Woodward
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1962

Summary

Subject: Highways

Taxicabs; plying for hire

Summary: The Divisional Court held that a licensed hackney carriage driver, sitting in a car which displayed a card on which was written "Radio Taxis, North 3071," and which was standing at or near a hackney carriage stand, was prima facie "plying for hire" within the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 45.

Legislation Cited

Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 45

Citations to the Case

Applied by
Rose v Welbeck Motors, [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1010; [1962] 2 All E.R. 801; (1962) 126 J.P. 413; 60 L.G.R. 423; (1962) 106 S.J. 470 (DC)

Borders v Swift
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1957

Summary
Cases Cited

Summary

Subject: Highways

Hiring; Insurance; Road traffic offences, Insurance; plying for hire

Summary: The defendant had used a car for the purpose of plying for hire otherwise than from a public stand or railway station, contrary to a local Act. His certificate of insurance limited the use of the car to the carriage of passengers or goods in connection with his business, which was that of car- hiring, and stated that the policy did not cover use for plying for hire from public stands or railway stations.

The prosecution contended before the magistrates that the defendant's policy should be examined by the court, but the magistrates acquitted the defendant on a charge of driving without there being in force a policy covering third-party risks, without referring to the policy. The Divisional Court, dismissing the prosecutor's appeal, held that the justices were justified in relying on the certificate of insurance alone though it was usually desirable that the policy should be seen, and that it was possible for a person to ply for hire at places other than a public stand or railway station (Hunt v. Morgan [1949] 1 K.B. 233 distinguished).

Cases Cited

Hunt v Morgan, [1949] 1 K.B. 233; [1948] 2 All E.R. 1065; 65 T.L.R. 15; (1949) 113 J.P. 67; 47 L.G.R. 83; (1949) 93 S.J. 59 (DC)

Many cases have referred to Hunt v Morgan and although it is already in the TDO archives it might be wise to remind everyone that they don't have to take every passenger that hails them, no matter what their condition?
...............................................................................

Hunt v Morgan
(DC) Divisional Court
1 December 1948

[1949] 1 K.B. 233
[1948] 2 All E.R. 1065
65 T.L.R. 15
(1949) 113 J.P. 67
47 L.G.R. 83
(1949) 93 S.J. 59

Summary

Licensing

hiring; London; offences; Taxis

Taxicabs; plying for hire

Summary: A cab driver commits no offence by refusing to stop when hailed; he can only be required to accept anyone who chooses to hire him when he is actually on a rank or is stationary in a street. The appellant, a taxi-cab driver, was driving along Victoria Street, London, with his flag up and, without reasonable excuse, refused to stop when hailed.

He was charged under s. 17(2) of the London Hackney Carriage Act, 1853, with unlawfully refusing to drive to a place within the limits of the Act to which he was required to drive by a person intending to hire him.

Held, s. 17(2) must be construed with reference to s. 7 which imposes this duty on any driver who "shall ply for hire at any place within the limits of this Act". "Place" means a cab-rank and, consequently, no offence was committed. S.35 of the London Hackney Carriage Act, 1831, which is unrepealed, provides that a cab "found standing in any street... shall, unless actually hired, be deemed to be plying for hire" and it would thus appear that a driver although not on a cab-rank is also bound to accept a fare while he is stationary and not engaged, having, e.g., just set down a passenger. Per Lord Goddard, C.J.: "It would seem that an Act consolidating and amending, and, if possible, simplifying, the law with regards to cabs, is very desirable".

Legislation Cited

Hackney Carriages (London) Act 1853 s. 2
Hackney Carriages (London) Act 1853 s. 7
Hackney Carriages (London) Act 1853 s. 12
Hackney Carriages (London) Act 1853 s. 17
Hackney Carriages (London) Act 1853 s. 21
London Hackney Carriage Act 1831 s. 35

Distinguished by
Borders v Swift, [1957] Crim. L.R. 194 (DC)

Citations to the Case

Considered by
Eldridge v British Airports Authority, [1970] 2 Q.B. 387; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 968; [1970] 2 All E.R. 92; (1970) 114 S.J. 247 (DC)