A judge has told Berwick Council to rethink its policy on taxi licences after Tyneside cabbies protested over an influx of rival operators. Newcastle City Council brought the High Court case, complaining Berwick Council was issuing hundreds of licences which could be used anywhere in the UK. The town has 672 licensed Hackney carriages, one for every 40 residents. Berwick Council has now been advised by the court that is should only license taxis intending to operate locally. The court heard the streets of Newcastle were flooded with Berwick-licensed taxis doing private hire work. 'Local in character' The border town's cheaper and easier regime had seen a rapid increase from just 46 licensed Hackney carriages in April 2006, the judge was told. The court heard Berwick licensed cabs were common in town's across the North East and some drivers lived as far afield as the West Midlands, Wales, Liverpool, and Surrey. Judge Christopher Symons QC rejected Berwick Council's arguments that it is obliged by law to issue a Hackney carriage license to any applicant, so long as they and their vehicle are "fit". He said the taxi-licensing regime, which dates back to 1847, was designed to protect the public and was essentially "local in character". He said: "The licensing system should operate in such a way that the authority licensing Hackney carriages is the authority for the area in which those vehicles are generally used." "If the Hackney carriages are used in areas remote from Berwick, enforcement will be very difficult and impracticable." Judge Symons said his ruling would remain at the authority's discretion. A spokesman for Newcastle City Council said it was "delighted" with the outcome of the case. Berwick Council said it was now preparing a new policy in light of the ruling.

R appealed the decision of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council refusing him his Hackney Carriage Driver's Licence on the grounds that in July 2007 he had been disqaulified from driving for 6 months. Since that time R had on the advice of his solicitor undertaken an intensive advanced driving course. Held: R was a fit and proper person to drive Hackney Carriage Vehicles and accordingly the Appeal was allowed. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys - Jeffreys Solicitors

L & others appealed the decision of Stockport BC to refuse to grant each of them 2 Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licenses. The decsion was based on an unmet demand survey carried out in 2005. Held: Appeal allowed to the extent that each of the five Appellants were granted one Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence each. Counsel for the Appellants, Peter Maddox Cambrian Chambers. Solicitor for the Appellants Keith Jeffreys, Jeffreys Solictors.

In September 2007 the respondent council revoked the appellant's hackney carriage drivers licence on the grounds that the appellant had been convicted (in his ebsence) for leaving his hackney carriage unattended on a hackney carriage stand whilst he ordered a coffee and sandwich in the cafe opposite. In February 2008, the Magistrates sitting at Margate upheld the council's decision having taken the view the punishment was proportionate to the offence. The Crown Court at Cantebury disagreed with the council and the Magistrates, and the appeal was allowed. Counsel for the Appellant Peter Maddox, Cambrian Chambers Swansea. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jefffeys, Jeffreys Solicitors nr Swansea

Mr H (the Appellant) appealed against a decision of the Respondent Council to refuse to grant him a licence in respect of a vehicle that was at the time of the application around 2 years and 3 months old. However, when the vehicle came into the possession of the Appellant in February 2004 it was in fact only 20 months old. The vehicle was passed to the Appellant with a Private Hire Vehicle Licence that was said to expire on 31st Jnaury 2005. In June 2004 a routine enforcement exercise revealed that the Licence was a forgery. It was never the Respondent's case that the Appellant had any knowledge that the licence was a forgery, but there was an issue as to whether the vehicle could now be licensed due to the fact that it was in excess of 2 years old, which is contrary to council policy that all vehicles on first time licensing have to be less than 2 years old. In November the Licensing Committee refused the application. The Appellant Appealed and the matter was heard by a single District Judge on 22nd February 2005. The District Judge felt that this was clearly a case in which his discretion should be exercised in favour of the Appellant and so allowed the Appeal. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys

O-v-Surrey Heath Borough Council Magistrates upheld O's appeal against the council's refusal to renew his hackney carriage drivers licence and awarded O £1,000.00 towards the costs of the case. O's licnce was due for renewal on 30th November 2004. In September 2004 the council was on notice that O had 12 penalty points on his DVLA licence, but took no steps to suspend or revoke O's Licence. Therefore, by default it was arguable that the council considered O to be a fit and proper person, despite the 12 points on O's licence. On 1st November 2004 O applied to renew his licence. In other words some 29 days before the licence was due for renewal. The council's guidelines on renewals are that the application to renew must be made at least 7 days before the old licence is due to expire. O had heard nothing by 26th November, and so chased the council for a decision. He was told that a report would be placed before the relevant council officer for consideration. A report was prepared on 30th November, but had to be amended because the council had forgotten to include what it considered to be relevant information. The decsion whether or not to renew was taken on 3rd December and communicated to O in wrtiting on 17th December. O lodged an appeal on 23rd December to Woking Magistrates Court. On 11th January 2005 Woking Council threatened O with injunctive proceedings at the High Court if O failed to undertake not to drive his taxi pending the outcome of the Magistrates Appeal. The council's argument was simply that O could not carry on driving under s77 because at the time the decision not to renew was taken, the licence had in fact expired. Solicitors for O persuaded the Magistrates Court to list the Appeal as a matter of urgency. The Court and the council agreed to list the Appeal on 11th February 2005. On that basis, O took a commercial decision to stop driving pending the appeal. As stated above, O won his Appeal and he was awarded £1,000.00 towards his costs. O has complained to the Chief Executive at Surrey Heath regarding the council's failure to determine his application in a timely manner and if no satisfactory response is given, O reserves his right (amongst other things) to lodge a complaint of maladministration to the Local Government Ombudsman. The Magistrates were satisfied that the council knew of the penalty points on O's liocence as far back as September 2004, but did nothing. Therefore the Magistrates could find no reasonable cause not to allow the Appeal in O's favour Solicitor for O was Keith Jeffreys . Counsel for O was Peter Maddox Iscoed Chambers Swansea.

Khan-v-Stoke on Trent City Council. The Appellant won his Appeal against the council's decsion to suspend his licence for 4 months on account of the fact that the council did not consider the Appellant to be a fit and proper person. One reason behind the council's decision was the fact that the Appellant had pleaded guilty in April 2004 to plying for hire in his private hire vehicle. The Magistrates upheld the Appeal but declined to award costs in favour of the Appellant. That said, the appellant was delighted not to have to face a 4 month suspension nor indeed any suspension, as the Magistrates do have the power to increase or decrease the punishment if they think fit to do so. Counsel for the Appellant Ms Jenny Ashworth Deans Court Chambers Manchester - Solicitor for the Appellant Mr. Keith Jeffreys.

Adjudicator's Decision This case comes before the Adjudicator under Regulation 11 of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993(as amended) by way of an application for review of the original decision on the appeal. The Adjudicator, having considered this matter on the basis of written evidence from the Appellant and written evidence from the Authority, has determined that the appeal against liability for the charge should be allowed on the grounds that there was no breach of the bus lane order or regulation. The reasons for the Adjudicator's decision are attached. The Adjudicator directs the Authority to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice. 12 November 2004 Case No. 2040149458 GL04849236 Evidence for Case: 2040149458 Adjudicator's Reasons This is an application by Transport for London (TFL) for review of the decision in this appeal. In deciding that the Appellant was entitled to drive his vehicle in a bus lane, the Adjudicator followed the decision of another Adjudicator in Case Number 2030394499. The question is whether a Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) from outside London is a "taxi" for the purposes of bus lane control. If it is, it can be driven in a bus lane (provided, of course, that it is one that "taxis" are allowed to use; if it is not, it cannot. In TFL v Faw (Case Number 203013556A) the Adjudicator found that a London PHV is not a "taxi" and therefore cannot use bus lanes. It would be a curious anomaly if London PHVs could not use bus lanes in London but PHVs from outside London could. In fact there is no such anomaly, as I will explain. A vehicle is a taxi if licensed under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriages Act 1868, or under any similar enactment. This vehicle is licensed under section 48 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The question therefore is whether the vehicle is a hackney carriage, the distinguishing feature of which is that it can ply for hire in the street. To do so, it must be positively licensed to do so under one of the relevant enactments, and it is an offence to do so without being so licensed. The Adjudicator in 2030394499 was therefore in error in focusing on the fact that there appeared to be no prohibition on plying for hire; as I say, the question is whether the vehicle has a licence to do so. The vehicle in this case is a PHV. It is a fundamental feature of the relevant legislation that it distinguishes between hackney carriages, which can ply for hire in the street, and PHVs, which cannot: see Brentwood BC v Gladen (The Times 1 November 2004). Section 80(1) of the 1976 Act referred to above expressly excludes hackney carriages from the definition of a PHV. The vehicle in this case is a PHV. It therefore is not a hackney carriage and cannot ply for hire in the street. Accordingly it is not a "taxi" for the purposes of the use of bus lanes. It follows that a contravention did occur in this case. However, it seems to me that it is the principle of this decision that TFL are interested in, not the individual case. I therefore do not consider it in the interests of justice to review the original decision and set it aside, and so place the Appellant in the position of being liable to pay the penalty after receiving a favourable decision in the first place. The Appellant can now, however, be in no doubt that he cannot drive a PHV in a bus lane. I have directed that a copy of this decision be sent to the National Private Hire Association with a view to its being publicised to its members. It may be that there are other avenues of publicity that occur to TFL. It is plainly desirable that those affected by this decision are made aware of it so far as possible. Martin Wood Adjudicator appointed under Section 73(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 acting in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) 12 November 2004 Case No. 2040149458 GIM49236 Evidence for Case: 2040149458 SOURCE NPHA

JUSTICES' REASONS - FETS v DURHAM CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UNDER s47 (3) LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976. DURHAM M.C. - 18th NOVEMBER 2004 On 2/8/04 Durham City Council's Cabinet approved a colour policy that, as of 1 September 2004, newly licensed hackney carriages in Durham City must be white. Conversely, newly licensed private hire vehicles may be any colour other than white. The transition period in which currently licensed vehicles must comply with the colour policy is the earlier of either the licence being transferred to another vehicle or the maximum vehicle age being reached. Vehicles do not have to be replaced until 7 years from the date of registration, or at the age of 10 years if maintained and agreed by the council to be in exceptional condition. A letter was sent to all licensed vehicle proprietors on 4 August 2004 advising them of the licensing changes. One such proprietor was the complainant, Adrian Fets. Mr Fets brings this appeal, being aggrieved by the Council's decision to impose a condition that hackney carriages in Durham City be white in colour. The relevant legislation is contained in s47 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and by virtue of the legislation, Mr Fets has to satisfy us, on a balance of probabilities, that the condition is not reasonably necessary. The Council's reasons for imposing such a condition appear to be three-fold - i/ to achieve uniformity with neighbouring areas in the County - we accept that the Council are entitled to have regard to the approach adopted in other areas faced with a similar decision to make, but the same conclusion does not have to be reached. We accept Mr Singh's submission that there appears to have been no assessment made by the Durham City Council as to why a colour policy is reasonably necessary for Durham. The mere fact that such a policy is reasonably necessary for one area does not automatically make it so for another. ii/ to ensure hackney carriages are readily distinguishable from private hire vehicles. We accept that the principal purpose of the legislation is that the public should be able to differentiate safely and simply between the two types of vehicles. The colour policy should be interpreted in a way which supports that principal purpose. However, we have evidence before us that hackney carriages already have 3 distinctive features, namely a sign on the top, a logo on the door and the plate itself. The public should be able to clearly identify a Durham hackney carriage and distinguish it from a private hire vehicle by its current identification marks. iii/ to ensure public safety - again we believe the present distinguishing features are adequate to deter the passing off of unlicensed vehicles as Hackney Carriages and thereby sufficient to secure passenger safety. We accept that, prior to the introduction of the policy; there were a number of open meetings at which objectors were given an opportunity to make representations. The way in which the Council reached its decision was fair in that regard. Some of the traders' concerns were addressed by the Council, in allowing a transition period for existing licence holders. However, the 12-week safety zone, which applies when existing vehicles are taken off the road for repair, does little to alleviate traders' concerns and in fact enhances their worries and frustrations. If an unforeseen event arose in the nature of an accident or mechanical breakdown, a proprietor is faced with either losing work and income for the period during which the vehicle is being repaired, or transferring the licence to a temporary vehicle and then being unable to transfer it back to the original vehicle unless the original vehicle complies with the colour policy. This is one of Mr Fets' main objections. We are in no doubt that this effect of the policy is wholly unreasonable. It would potentially result in substantial economic loss to the proprietor and, had it not been for the intervening accident or break down, the proprietor could have continued to use the vehicle for possibly several years before having to comply with the colour policy. This aspect of the licensing changes cannot therefore be reasonably necessary on grounds of harmonisation, safety or to ensure the vehicle is readily distinguishable from a private hire vehicle. Another of Mr Fets' objections is in relation to the relative unavailability of white vehicles. Due to the transition period and the time frame within which a proprietor can change his vehicle to render it compliant with the colour policy, we see this as no more than an inconvenience. It is less surmountable however, in the unfortunate case of an accident or breakdown and we reiterate what has already been said about the 12-week safety zone being unreasonable. In all of the circumstances therefore, Mr Fets has satisfied us that the condition that hackney carriages in Durham be white in colour is not reasonably necessary and we accordingly allow his appeal and reverse the decision of the Council to impose such a condition on his licence. Source NPHA

Brentwood Borough Council-v-Gladen Mr. Justice Collins and Mr. Justice Silber today confirmed that it is not necessary for a Hackney Carriage Proprietor/Driver to have to hold a Private Hire Operators Licence in order to accept Private Hire Bookings (i.e. telephone bookings) for a Hackney Carriage Vehicle. Judgment MR JUSTICE COLLINS: 34. I have reached the clear view that the district judge in this case was correct and that section 46(1)(d) is not breached where a licensed hackney carriage and a licensed hackney carriage driver is provided for the relevant conveyance of a passenger, albeit it is provided through an operator. In those circumstances, an operator's licence under section 55 of the Act is not appropriate, since that section does not cover hackney carriages. 35. The district judge posed this question for the opinion of the High Court: "Whether it is necessary to hold a licence under section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, in an area where that Act is in force, to operate a hackney carriage duly licensed as such under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 as a private hire vehicle." 36. The answer to that question is: no. Accordingly, I would dismiss this appeal. 37. MR JUSTICE SILBER: I agree that this appeal must be dismissed. 45. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: It is only surprising that it has not been expressly decided in the -- whatever it is -- 28 years that this has been in force. We have now decided it, rightly or wrongly. SOURCE Smith Bernal Solicitor for the Respondent (Mr. Gladen) Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea - Counsel for the Respondent Peter Maddox Iscoed Chambers Swansea

Magistrates will not now be asked to determine the Appeal of a Hackney Carriage Driver who has had his licence suspended until as such time as he had passed the DSA Taxi Driver Test. The Appellant has since taken his DSA Driving Standards Test and the Council has reissued his licence. The matter has now been withdrawn from the Court list on the basis that there be no Order as to costs. By lodging his appeal, the Appellant continued to drive his vehicle until he passed the DSA test, thereby minimising his losses. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea

Magistrates will consider the Appeal of Mr. S who has had his Private Hire Drivers Licence suspended for 3 months after being convicted of Illegally Plying for Hire. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co

K-v-Darlington Borough Council Mr. K was refused a Hackney Carriage Driver's Licence until he produced a DSA Pass Certificate - The Council argued that the requirment was a "request for information" within the meaning of s57 of the LG(MP) Act 1976 - K Appealed against that refusal, claiming inter alia the request for information was in fact a "Condition of Licence" which if correct was beyond the Council's powers - The Appellant relied on Wathan-v-Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council in support of that assertion. The Magistrates agreed with the Appellant and upheld the Appeal. Solicitor for the Appellant Ms Hannah Bright of Messrs. Rowley Ashworth - The Appellant was sponsored by Amicus the Union

Sudhan-v-Southampton City Council - The Council revoked the Appellant's Licence on 7th March 2003 - The Appellant Appealled and the Court listed the case for a Pre Trial Review on 29th May 2003. The Appellant's Licence was due for renewal on 31st May 2003. The Council attended the hearing on 29th May and the Court allowwd the Appeal in the Appellant's absence. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea.

Edwards-v-Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council - A Hackney carriage Driver who Appealed to the Magistrates Court against the suspension of his Licence has had his appeal allowed by consent, after the Council eventually accepted that the Appellant had provided a Medical Certificate (on at least 2 ocassions) since last September and had therefore met the criteria required by the Council as to medical fitness. It was agreed that the appeal be allowed by consent on the basis there be no order as to costs. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea.

Payne-v-Eastleigh Borough Council - The Appellants appeal agaainst the Council's decsion to refuse to grant him with a Private Hire Drivers Licence was allowed. The Council were ordered to pay the Appellant's costs - Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea.

- Powell-v-City & County of Swansea - The Appellant appealed against the Council's decsion to refuse to renew Four (4) Hackney Carriage Licences. The basis of the Council's decsion was as follows: (1) The applications had not been made in a timely manner. (2) No Notices of transfer accompanied the applications (3) The Appellant had not included his home address on the application forms (3) That in any event the Appellant now had to provide brand new purpose built vehicles. The four Appeals were allowed - The Magistrates found that the Applications had been made in a timely manner, the forms had been completed correctly, there was no onus on the Appellant to provide letters of transfer as that was the role of the transferor, there was no requirement on the form to provide his home address, the Council should have done more to facilitate the licensing of the vehicles. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea. Despite the result, costs were not awarded to the Appellant. As such the decsion of Magistrates was Appealed to the High Court by way of Case Stated. The High Court dealt with the matter on 30th July and upheld the Appellant's complaint. The Council was Ordered to pay the costs of the Magistrates Court hearing and the costs of the application to the High Court.

Mohammed-v-Newcastle upon Tyne City Council - The Appellant Appealled against the Council's refusal to renew his Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence - The reason(s) given by the Council for refusing to renew the licence were amongst other things; that the Application was late and was therefore a new application (requiring a Wheelchair accessible vehicle) and at the time the application was made the Appellant had not submitted a "complete" Application Form nor had he submitted a vehicle for testing. Held: Appeal allowed - The Council was ordered to pay the Appellant £5,000.00 in costs. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea - Counsel for the Appellant Paul Tucker 40 King Street Manchester.

Vivian Owen-v-Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council - The Appellant applied for 8 Hackney Carriage Licenses during the period June - August 2001. In September 2002 the Council determined 2 of the applications and resolved to refuse them on the basis that there was no significant unmet demand - The Appellant lodged an Appeal against the refusal to grant/witholding of all 8 Licences. Held - The Appeal was allowed to the extent that the Appellant was entitled to be granted 7 additional licenses. The Council agreed to pay the Appellant his costs in the sum of just over £5,600.00. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea - Counsel for the Appellant Peter Maddox Iscoed Chambers Swansea.

Jeffrey Wathan-v-Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council - Before Sir Edwin Jowitt - Case Stated - Held - The Applicant's appeal against the decision of Neath Magistrates be upheld - The Conduct of a Hackney Carriage Driver (if to be regulated) must be regulated by way of Bye Laws and not Conditions of Licence. s68 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is the relevant provision so far as Bye Laws are concerned. There is no power under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to attach Conditions to the Licenses of Hackney Carriage Drivers. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Appellant's costs in relation to the Case Stated and the costs below - Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea - Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Peter Maddox Iscoed Chambers Swansea - Solicitor for the Respondent Neath & Port Talbot legel Dept - Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Paul Thomas Iscoed Chambers Swansea.

A Hackney Carriage Driver who had the renewal of his Licence refused has lost his Appeal to Guildford Magistrates Court on the basis that he could not satisy the "Group 2 Medical Standards of Fitness to Drive" The Council was challenged on the basis that it had not given the Appellant the right to make representations prior to the decsion to refuse renewal having been taken, the Council had failed in its duty to notify the Appellant of its decsion and of his right of Appeal and that in any event the Council treated its policy as a hard and fast rule and had therefore fettered its discretion. Further or in the alternative and in the facts of this particular case, the Appellant was medically fit to drive a Hackney Carriage Vehicle. The Council sought costs in the sum of just over £5,000.00 which the Magistrates reduced to £600.00. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea - Counsel for the Respondent Clare Dobbin 1 Raymond Building London.

A Hackney Carriage Driver who had his Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence Revoked for driving an unlicensed vehicle (The Licence had expired by 4 days) won his Appeal at Newport Magistrates Court on 19th November 2001. The Court was satisfied amongst other things that the appellant had overlooked the fact that the vehicle licence had expired and accepted submissions that the oversight did not impact upon his ability or suitability to "drive". Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea.

A Taxi Driver who had his Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence revoked on the grounds that he was not a fit and proper person won his appeal at Birmingham Magistartes Court on 7th November 2001 (He had previously pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault) The case waqs unique on its facts and the Court were persuaded that he was unlikley to reoffend. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea.

A Private Hire Driver who had his Licence revoked because it was claimed he was rude to an enforcement officer, had prolonged a journey and had failed to take part in a taped interview has had his appeal allowed. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea. Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Nick Siddall 40 King Street Chambers Manchester.

A 19 year old driver applied for a Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence earlier this year but because of her age the matter was referred to the Council's Licensing Committee. The Council had a condition of licence (a policy) that it would only licence drivers aged at least 21 and who have been driving for at least 2 years. The Council further conteneded that the age of the Appellant meant that they could not be satisfied that she was a "fit & proper person" to hold a licence. The Appellant argued that neither the Act of 1847 or 1976 required an applicant to be aged at least 21 and in fact the wording of the Acts made it clear that so long as an applicant had held a full drivers licence for at least 12 months then a licence should be issued, provided of course that she was otherwise fit and proper. The Appellant in this case was medically fit, conviction free and had held a full licence for 2 years and 7 months. The Appellant further argued that the condition of licence relied on by the council was unenforceable as there is no provision in the Act of 1847 or 1976 to attach conditions of Licence upon a Hackney Carriage Driver. Hackney Carriage Drivers must be regulated by way of "Bye-Laws" in accordance with s68 Town Police Clauses Act 1847. HELD: The Appeal was allowed and the Council was ordered to pay the Appellant's costs. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys, Kearns & Co Swansea - Solicitor for the Council Robert Edgecombe, Carmarthenshire County Council Legal Serices.

A Private Hire Driver who appealed against his convictions against plying for hire and driving without insurance won his case at Liverpool Crown Court on 3rd August 2001. There were many prongs to the Appellant's defence the first of which was Knowsley Council had no case to offer as the alleged offences took place on "Private Land". This was accepted by the Judge and the convictions were quashed. Solicitor for the Appellant Mr. Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea. Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Paul Tucker 40 King Street Manchester. THE COUNCIL HAD REQUESTED THE CROWN COURT TO "STATE IT'S CASE" BUT WITHDREW THAT REQUEST AFTER CONDIDERING ITS POSITION

A Hackney Carriage Driver who instructed solicitors to Judicially Review the Counmcil's decision to deregulate the Hackney Carriage waiting list in Sheffield has lost his application for permission to apply for Judicial Review on the basis that amongst other things the argument had now become academic. The rationale behind the Judge's refusal of permission is that the Council would have been entitled to change it's policy in June 2001 in any event. Solicitors for the Applicant Mr. Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea - Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Peter Maddox Iscoed Chambers Swansea.

Newcastle City Council has agreed to stop issuing any more Hackney Carriage Licenses until it has carried out a survey on unmet demand. """Editors Note""". There is a very strong argument to say that Newcastle City Council would be bound to issue a Licence to any person who met the Council's criteria, because until the survey is carried out the Council cannot be satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand.

A Private Hire Operator has won her fight with York City Council to retain the name of her company on the side of her vehicles. The Council had imposed a new condition of licence whereby the word "Cab" was no longer permitted to be displyed on her vehicles. The Appellant operates a firm T/A "Country Cabs" and therfore challenged the new condition at York Magistrates Court on 12th February 2001. The Court allowed the Appeal and the Council was ordered to pay the Appellant's costs. Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Paul Tucker 40 King Street Chambers Manchester. Solicitor for the Appellant Mr. Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea.

A Hackney Carriage Driver won his Appeal on 29th January 2001 against the Council's decision to revoke his Vehicle & Driver's Licence because he also held a part-time job as a book-keeper. It was a condition of Licence that drivers hold one job only, which the Council claimed the Appellant breached when he took up his secondary employment. South Tyneside Magistrates found the condition to be unreasonable and ordered the Council to pay the appellant's costs which were in excess of £800.00. Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea. Counsel for the Appellant Mr. James Adkin.

A Hackney Carriage Driver has won his Appeal against the Council's refusal to renew his Licences. The refusal came about because the driver had been convicted for a motoring offence since being issued with his last licence. Lawyers for the Appellant took the preliminary point that the Council had failed to notify the driver of the Council's decision within 14 days as is required by law and that the Council had failed to set out the grounds for refusal within the refusal notice. The Magistrates agreed, and Ordered the Council to pay the Appellant's costs, which exceeded £1,200.00. Solicitor for the Appellant Mr. Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea. Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Ben Leech 3 Paper Buildings London.

A Hackney Carriage Proprietor does not need to hold a Private Hire Opertaors Licence even in circumstances where that Proprietor is accepting pre-booked fares. This decsion blows a hole clean through the 1991 Worcester Crown Court decsion (which was not binding in any event) which suggested that one has to look at the function of the vehicle and not its form. In the Doncaster case his Lordship took the view that the Council had fallen into the trap of imposing Private Hire requirements under the Local Governemnt (Miscellaneous Provisons) Act 1976 on the Hackney sector, when there was no power to do so.

Held. Mr. Rundle's Appeal against the witholding of his Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence was allowed and by consent the Council agreed to pay Mr. Rundle's costs in the sum of £2,493.66. Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Robin Green 2-3 Grays Inn Sq London - Solicitor for the Respondent BNES Legal Dept - Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Peter Maddox Iscoed Chambers Swansea - Solicitor for the Appellant Mr. Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea.

Held. A Hackney Carriage Proprietor can be a person "aggreived" by Conditions of Licence attached to Private Hire Vehicles requiring those vehicles to display illuminated window signs, and as such have a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court pursuant to s48(7) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 - Solicitor for the Appellant Mr. D Daycock City & County of Swansea - Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Paul Thomas, Iscoed Chambers Swansea - Solicitor for the Respondent Mr. Keith Jeffreys, Kearns & Co Swansea - Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Peter Maddox, Iscoed Chambers Swansea.