Taxi Driver Online

Cannocjk chase v Alldritt is one of the most interesting and significant cases of recent times.

It throws open the question as to the reasoning of Lord Woolf and his famous broad approach theory. It also lays to rest the assumption by some councils that they can attache unreasonable license conditions to applications.

It was found in this case that unmet demand in a certain area, within the prescribed area, is evidence of unmet demand. Another factor was that the applicant had obtained a petition of 700 signatures in support of his application?

The second major factor is one that has been highlighted on here many times and that is a licensing authority cannot attache unreasonable conditions to an application, such as having to buy a vehicle before the license application has been determined.

Mr Alldritt is another unsung lone individual who will go down in Taxi history as a man who helped mould hackney carriage case law.

Cannock Chase District Council v Alldritt

Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List)

HEARING-DATES: 28 January 1993

28 January 1993

COUNSEL:
M Stephens for the Appellant; The Respondent appeared in person

PANEL: Mann LJ, Tudor Evans J

JUDGMENTBY-1: MANN LJ

JUDGMENT-1:
MANN LJ: There is before the court an appeal by way of case stated. The appellant is the Cannock Chase District Council in its capacity as the authority responsible for licensing Hackney carriages within its area. The respondent is Mr Neil Alldritt.

The case is stated by the Crown Court at Stafford in respect of its adjudication on an appeal by Mr Alldritt against the refusal by the appellant to grant him Hackney carriage licences.

The facts of the matter are that Mr Alldritt wishes to operate Hackney carriages at Rugeley. Rugeley is one of the three small towns within the appellant's district. He applied for the requisite vehicle licences which are by a complex statutory chain granted in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

His applications were refused by the district council in the exercise of provisions added to section 37 of the Act of 1847 by section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 which has the shoulder note "Taxi licensing. Control of numbers". The section provides:

"The provisions of Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to Hackney carriages . . . shall have effect . . . (b) as if they provided that the grant of a licence may be refused, for the purposes of limiting the number of Hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted if, but only if, the person authorized to grant licences is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet."

The district council took and retain the view that the area to which a 1icence would apply is necessarily the whole of their administrative area. They also take the view, founded upon a report which they commissioned from the Public Administration Research Centre ("PARC") that there is a sufficiency of taxis in the area as a whole. Accordingly, the district council exercised the discretion under section 16 and refused the licence. Against that refusal Mr Alldritt appealed to the Crown Court.

The Crown Court found that there were deficiencies in the PARC report. They also found that the PARC report rightly concluded:

"Passengers can face longer individual delays at the Rugeley rank than elsewhere. This is a known fact, perhaps. Consequently people are disinclined to wait at Rugeley as they would at Cannock and Hednesford and will renege, that is leave, that rank queue in greater numbers than from the other two ranks. This suggests that there is public knowledge concerning the under-performance of the Hackney Fleet which serves the Rugeley rank." This under-performance was supported before the Crown Court by a petition bearing 700 names which requested the grant of a licence to Mr Alldritt in order that he could operate from a particular stand in Rugeley. The Crown Court's conclusion was:

"There was at all material times significant demand for the services of Hackney Carriages in the town of Rugeley, which is within the area to which licences would apply, that is unmet and therefore that the District Council was not entitled to refuse grant of licences to Mr Alldritt for the purpose of limiting the number of Hackney Carriages in respect of which licences are granted."

Accordingly, the Crown Court decided that licences should be granted.

The council is concerned at certain of the language employed by the Crown Court in its decision. In particular it is concerned that the Crown Court is indicating to the council that the phrase "the area" in section 16 means in effect any part of the area. I can understand that concern. However, although I understand the concern, it seems to me to be a point of no materiality in the instant proceedings. These proceedings were not review proceedings. Were they such, this court would have had to consider whether the council had properly directed itself, and if it had whether its conclusion was perverse. However, that did not arise because the appeal to the Crown Court involves a hearing de novo. It is the Crown Court which then becomes vested with the power of refusing by reference to the consideration in section 16 of the Act of 1985. I emphasize "power" because as a matter of statutory language there is no obligation to refuse upon that ground. It is quite plain that in this case the Crown Court considering the matter de novo decided not to exercise the power conferred by section 16. The observations about the council's entitlement to do so I, for my part, would regard as by the way. The court was not concerned with the council's entitlement. It was exercising the powers of licensing de novo. The Crown Court was perfectly entitled to proceed in the way in which it did. There is here no question on the construction of the Act of 1847, as enlarged by section 16 of the Act of 1985.

Accordingly, the second question raised in the case, "What is the proper construction of s37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 as amended by s 16 of the Transport Act 1985?" does not in my judgment arise.

A second point raised by the Crown Court, and which arose out of a consideration of the applications made by Mr Alldritt was this:

"Was the Crown Court correct in holding as unlawful the condition imposed by the District Council, that an applicant for a hackney carriage licence must present, with his application, a certificate of insurance in respect of the vehicle it is sought to license that is valid at the time of making the application?"

The district council has, as might be expected, a form of application for licence in respect of Hackney carriage vehicles, and it seeks information. Under the rubric "Insurance" there are questions as to the name of the company, as to whether all third party and passenger risks are covered, as to the period of the policy and as to its date. Overleaf there is the admonition, "This application must be accompanied by the following: (i) Registration Document for the Vehicle (ii) Valid Insurance Certificate, (iii) Fee".

The Crown Court seems to have proceeded upon the basis that an application would be treated as invalid by the district council unless accompanied by a valid insurance certificate. Mr Stephens on behalf of the council disclaims, as I understand him, that position. He draws attention to section 57(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which provides:

"A district council may require any applicant for a licence under the Act of 1847 or under this Part of this Act to submit to them such information as they may reasonably consider necessary to enable them to determine whether the licence should be granted and whether conditions should be attached to any such licence."

Mr Stephens submits that the insurance requests are requests which are reasonable within the meaning of that power. I agree with that submission without hesitation. I also agree that where there is a certificate of insurance it would be reasonable to require its production for inspection. However, I could not agree that an application should not be considered unless it is accompanied by a certificate of insurance. That requirement is not one which in my view is authorised by section 57, or for that matter any other provision in relation to the licensing of vehicles, and accordingly a refusal to entertain on that ground would in my judgment be unlawful.

As I understand it, the district council does not dissent from that and is content that its request for information might be answered "not yet arranged" or "to be arranged". Such an answer might well be one for a person who has not previously had a licence for his vehicle and who does not wish to incur expenditure on insuring it as a Hackney before he gets a plate for it. I think the difficulty would be removed if the form made it clear that there was a qualification ". . . if any".

Thus, if the question posed by the Crown Court which I have read is read in the sense in which I think it is intended to be read the answer is that it is unlawful to refuse to consider an application unless a certificate of insurance is in force. However, a request for information is in my view perfectly appropriate.

Accordingly, in my judgment the questions for the opinion of the High Court Court posed by the Crown Court must as to (1) be answered, yes, if understood in the sense I have indicated; and question (2) does not in my view arise.

JUDGMENTBY-2: TUDOR EVANS

JUDGMENT-2:
TUDOR EVANS: I agree.

DISPOSITION:
Appeal dismissed

SOLICITORS:
Head of Legal & Administrative Services, Cannock Chase District Council

Leading up to the above decision of the divisional court was the appeal to have the case stated ammended and referred back to the crown.

Cannock Chase District Council v Alldritt


Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List)

HEARING-DATES: 13 November 1992

13 November 1992

COUNSEL:
M Stephens for the Applicant; the Respondent did not appear in person

PANEL: Brooke J

JUDGMENTBY-1: BROOKE J

JUDGMENT-1:
BROOKE J: This is an application by the appellant, the Cannock Chase District Council, for a direction that the case stated be remitted back to the Stafford Crown Court for amendment. Suggested amendments are included in an exhibit to the affidavit of Susan Sims-Steward, sworn on 10th September 1992.

The application relates to an appeal by Mr Alldritt, who has acted in person throughout, which came before the Stafford Crown Court as long as 23rd March 1992 when it was heard by Mr Recorder Alan Pardoe QC sitting with justices who had experience of the local area. The Crown Court allowed Mr Alldritt's appeal and directed that six hackney carriage licences ought to be issued to him by the district council.

The district council was aggrieved with this decision and applied in time for the Crown Court to state a case. A draft case was submitted to the Crown Court and, in due course, Mr Pardoe signed a case stated which does not in all respects coincide with the local authority's draft.

There are three respects in which the local authority now seek to have the case amended. The first is that reference was made in the proceedings of the Crown Court to a survey on which the local council relied as providing reasons why Mr Alldritt's application should not be granted. The case stated contains a number of findings in relation to the survey and a number of findings as to the circumstances in which the survey was carried out. The local authority are, however, anxious that the main conclusions of the survey should be included in the case as stated.

The main issue of law which arises for decision in the case is whether the local authority were entitled to consider whether, generally, in their local authority area there was an unmet demand for hackney carriages or whether, as the Crown Court held, if they were satisfied that there was an unmet demand in the town of Rugeley within which Mr Alldritt wishes to ply his trade, that was sufficient to require them to grant him appropriate licences.

The first matter that Mr Stephens, who appears for the council, wishes to have included in the case is the conclusions of the survey. It seems to me that the conclusions in themselves would not take the matter very much further so far as the Divisional Court was concerned if they were not seen in the context of the survey as a whole. The survey is a relatively short document. If the Divisional Court wishes to see the survey and if Mr Stephens, or whoever appears for the district council, wishes to draw their attention to any part of it, then it seems to me that it would be unfair in principle to deny him the opportunity, at any rate, of referring to the survey if he wishes, subject always to leave being granted by the Divisional Court.

I would not be happy about directing the Crown Court to restate their case, simply referring to the conclusions of the survey without referring to the whole of it. Accordingly my view on this part of the application is that the appropriate course for me to take would be to grant the appellant leave, subject always to the views of the Divisional Court before whom this appeal is heard, to adduce the whole of the survey before the Divisional Court so that the court may read it if it wishes.

What I would suggest as a matter of practice is that a transcript of this judgment be placed with the court papers before the Divisional Court, and the survey findings annexed to it, so that the Divisional Court can see, before the case comes on, the view that I have formed and can decide de bene esse whether they wish to read it beforehand.

Much the same applies to the second matter with which the district council is concerned. This relates to the circumstances in which Mr Alldritt, having had an application for six hackney carriages turned down, subsequently applied for two. He was required, with his application form, to submit a valid insurance certificate. Because it was expensive to insure these taxis, he could only afford to insure two and could only produce a certificate in respect of two.

The case stated sets out in convenient form the facts relating to this. The council wish the Divisional Court to see the application form. I do not, for my part, see that the application form takes the matter very much further. I would be very reluctant to deny the council the opportunity to show the application form to the Divisional Court if it wishes to do so, because it seems to me unfortunate, if the council were to feel aggrieved, that they could not show this form to the court. Accordingly my attitude to this is very much the same as my attitude to the first application, that the council should have leave to adduce the application form before the Divisional Court, subject always to the Divisional Court's own decision as to whether it wishes to take it into account.

The third matter is rather different. There was a history of earlier applications in this matter and correspondence which passed between Mr Alldritt and the council which included some misleading advice given by the council relating to a potential appeal to a magistrates' court which did not exist. Ultimately Mr Alldritt, after submitting an earlier informal application for six hackney carriage licences, submitted a formal application for two. The Crown Court, having heard what happened, decided in the exercise of its discretion to treat this is as an appeal relating to the six hackney carriage licences which Mr Alldritt wanted. The council was aggrieved with the way that the Crown Court dealt with the matter and felt that it should properly have confined itself to an appeal in respect of two hackney carriage licences only.

There is nothing in the draft case drafted by the council's own legal advisers and submitted to the Crown Court which shows any factual basis on which the council's assertions that the Crown Court exercised its discretion wrongly could fairly be tried. What the council wishes to do is simply to tack on to the end of the draft case the question: in the circumstances, was the Crown Court correct to direct that the respondent grant the appellant six hackney carriage licences? If not, should it have directed that only two licences be granted or none at all?

In my judgment, in the absence of anything in the council's draft case which could effectively lead to an answer being given to the question (while it is true that certain of the earlier history was set out) it would be inappropriate to add that question to the case. Mr Alldritt always wanted six licences and the Crown Court granted him his wish for six licences. I do not see that it would be appropriate to direct that this further question should be asked.

In any event there are doubts as to the existence of any power in the High Court to order a Crown Court to amend a case whereas there is express power to do so under the legislation relating to cases stated by magistrates' courts. I would be very loth to allow this unhappy dispute to be prolonged further in the possibility that there might be further disputes about the jurisdiction of this court to do what the council asks.

In those circumstances, having made the observations I have in relation to the first two parts of the council's application and having rejected the third, I make no order on the application.

However, I am extremely concerned that further time has elapsed in relation to this matter. Mr Alldritt first applied for his six licences as long ago as March 1990. In all the circumstances, despite the pressure on the Divisional Court list, I consider that this is an appropriate case to order that now that the case stated is in its final form, this appeal be expedited.

Mr Stephens, how long do you anticipate that the appeal would take? The judges will have read the papers before you start and will have formed preliminary views on it anyhow.

DISPOSITION:
Judgment accordingly

SOLICITORS:
M Anderson, Head of Legal and Administrative Services, Cannock Chase District Council, Staffordshire