City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Eric Wilson Booth

Wednesday 10 May 2000

: The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The appellant is the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The respondent to the appeal (who does not appear) is Mr Eric Booth who operates a private car hire business.

The facts of the case so far as relevant are these. On 7 October 1997 the local authority granted Mr Booth a private hire operator's licence. That licence was valid from 7 October 1997 for one year and its effect was to license Mr Booth to operate private hire vehicles in the City of Bradford. The licence was subject to a condition that no more than one private hire vehicle should be run from an address in Haworth where Mr Booth lived.

The local authority took the view that Mr Booth had broken the condition of his licence and at the expiry of the year refused to renew it. The court is not concerned with the detailed grounds for the local authority's view, although it is plain that it was thought that Mr Booth was operating more than a single private hire vehicle from his home address.

Mr Booth was aggrieved by the decision of the local authority not to renew his licence and on 23 November 1998 preferred a complaint against the local authority. The effect of this complaint was to appeal against the decision not to renew his licence under section 62(3) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 against the decision not to renew his licence under section 62(1)(b) of the Act. By section 77 of that Act, sections 300 —302 of the Public Health Act 1936 are incorporated. Section 300 of the Public Health Act affords a right of appeal to the magistrates' court by way of complaint. In this way Mr Booth's complaint came before West Yorkshire Justices sitting in Bradford. The justices concluded that Mr Booth had not breached the condition of his licence, nor relevant planning legislation. Accordingly the justices upheld Mr Booth's appeal and renewed his private operator's licence on the same terms and conditions as had obtained previously.

Mr Booth by his representative then applied for costs against the local authority under section 64 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which so far as relevant provides in subsection (1):

"On the hearing of a complaint, a magistrates' court shall have power in its discretion to make such order as to costs —

(a) on making the order for which the complaint is made, to be paid by the defendant to the complainant;

(b) on dismissing the complaint, to be paid by the complainant to the defendant, as it thinks just and reasonable;…."

On behalf of Mr Booth it was argued before the justices that in this situation, as in other litigious situations, the principle that costs follow the event should apply. It was contended that ( R v Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police unreported, 9 November 1998, CO/3484/98), to which I will come in a moment, should be distinguished. It was further contended that although the local authority were exercising an administrative function in the licensing of private hire operators, if they made a mistake or failed to consider matters properly they should not escape the consequences of paying an appropriate sum in costs. It was, however, conceded on behalf of Mr Booth that the local authority had not acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

Those submissions made on behalf of Mr Booth were strongly contested in counter-submissions made by the local authority, on whose behalf it was argued that the local authority was carrying out a public function which it was required to perform by law and that in those circumstances costs should not follow the event but should be awarded only if the local authority had acted unreasonably or in bad faith. It was argued that the principle in the Merthyr Tydfil case should be followed. It was further argued that a conflict might arise between the local authority's overriding duty to protect the public, as set out in Department of Transport guidance, and the authority's concern to protect its position on costs. Such a dilemma, it was said, would be even more acute if costs automatically followed the event.

The justices formed the opinion, as recorded in the statement of case, that costs should follow the event in the instant case, subject to costs being just and reasonable, and accordingly ordered that Mr Booth should recover £750 plus VAT against the local authority. The questions posed for the opinion of the court are two—fold:

"a) Were we correct in law in finding that the principle that 'costs follow the event' apply against Local Authorities who make decisions on licensing functions which they are required to perform?

b) Were we correct in law in finding that there was no requirement that we be satisfied that the Local Authority had acted unreasonably or in bad faith, before we could order costs against the Local Authority?"

On behalf of the local authority today Mr Blair-Gould submits that the approach taken by the justices was erroneous in principle. The correct principle, he submits, is that a local authority ought never to be ordered to pay costs in a situation of this kind unless it has acted unreasonably, improperly or dishonestly. He reminds us, quite correctly, that sometimes an authority may have a duty of enforcement as, for example, the police in relation to licensing. But equally he points out, correctly, that sometimes a local authority or the police themselves may be the licensing authority. He draws our attention to the huge range of licensing functions which the local authority is required by statute to carry out. Of those their duties in relation to vehicle licensing are probably the largest and most exacting. He submits that the local authority works inevitably through sub-committees who seek to act in a quasi-judicial manner, making decisions in the public interest, and he urges that it would be gravely detrimental to the protection of the public if local authorities were to be deterred from making...