Taxi rankings

From insurance to the granting of licences and from contract termination to wheelchair access, Ben Williams casts an eye over recent decisions in relation to taxi law

Insurance-related issues bubble up from time-to-time in connection with taxi law. In Sedgefield Borough Council v (1) James Crowe (2) Ashley Crowe [2008] EWHC 1814 (Admin) DC (Maurice Kay LJ, Blake J) 8/7/2008, a driver who had driven a hackney carriage vehicle to make a non-hire private journey, albeit on taxi-related business, but who did not hold a hackney carriage driver's licence was nevertheless validly insured to drive the vehicle under a general company insurance policy.

Accordingly he was properly acquitted of using a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.143, as the terms of the relevant policy were satisfied by a standard driving licence. The High Court noted that a letter from the relevant insurers saying a standard driving licence was sufficient for them in the context was helpful evidence, though not conclusive as to construction of the contract of insurance. The reasoning in this case distinguished Telford and Wrekin BC v Ahmed (2006) EWHC 1748 (Admin), which concerned private hire vehicle drivers not being insured when plying for hire.

It is clear that this was a fairly unusual case, and will not assist defendants unless caught in a very similar situation. It most certainly does not change the position for private hire drivers who ply for hire: whether they go beyond their insurance cover in doing so will continue to depend on construction of the specific document (they usually will).

Granting of licences

A significant decision in relation to policy as to the granting of licences is R (Newcastle CC) (C) v Berwick-upon-Tweed BC (D) & (1) George Richardson (for Berwick Borough Taxi Association) (2) Ian Gordon Shanks, Paul Thomas Shanks & Jane Bell (T/A Blue Line Taxis) (IPs) (2008) EWHC 2369 QBD (Admin) (Christopher Symons QC) 5/11/2008. The court declared that a local authority could – and probably should – refuse to issue hackney carriage licences to people with no intention of exercising their right to ply for hire within its own area.

The facts were essentially that around 90% of drivers applying to Berwick Borough Council for hackney carriage licences appeared in fact to be operating in Newcastle and its environs. Berwick continued to grant licences because it believed it could only refuse if the driver or proprietor were unfit. However, the judge refused to depart from Brentwood BC v Gladen [2004] EWHC 2500 (Admin); [2005] R.T.R. 12 and held that that Newcastle City Council could not prosecute private hire operators for using hackney carriages to fulfil pre-booked hirings in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, even though the hackney carriage licences were obtained from Berwick BC.

Terminating a contract

In R on the application of (1) Birmingham & Solihull Taxi Association (2) Sajid Butt (C) v Birmingham International Airport Ltd (D) and Passenger Transport Solutions UK Ltd (IP) [2009] EWHC 1913 QBD (Admin), Birmingham International Airport had terminated a contract with a local taxi association. The latter claimed judicial review of the decision.

It was decided that the defendant had been entitled to terminate its contract with the claimant, on the basis of a clause in the agreement relating to C’s financial standing. There was no evidential basis for finding that D had had an ulterior motive. C’s accounts showed a substantial deterioration in finances, and so its decision was objectively justified; D’s duty to consult with C was a question of fact, probably determined by the details of the agreement and so it was doubtful there was any duty in this instance.

Wheelchairs in motion

Lastly, a case identifying a duty to seek the best Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicles (‘WAVs’): R on the application of (1) Alma Lunt (2) Allied Vehicles Ltd v Liverpool City Council (D); Equalities & Human Rights Commission (IP) [2009] EWHC 2356 QBD (Admin). The licensing committee of a local authority refused to extend its policy regulating vehicles for public hire in order to approve a new wheelchair-friendly vehicle to be used as a public hire vehicle in the area.

Essentially, Ms Lunt used a longer than standard wheelchair. Her case was that more space allowed her to turn in the rear and face forward properly, and be secured; she could also travel with more than one other passenger: these things were not possible, she contended, in the standard taxis.

The High Court held that it could entertain the claim for judicial review, even though there was a factual dispute. It found that the local authority had failed to understand the documentary evidence before it, which was sufficient to show that some wheelchair users could not access the existing type of vehicle for space reasons. The true factual situation was a mandatory factual consideration, both under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s.49A and at common law. The decision was quashed.

Ben Williams is a barrister specialising in regulatory work at St Philip’s Chambers in Birmingham