Dittah v Birmingham City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1993 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
14 cases
-
Blue Line Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd v The Council of the City of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
...55). It is well-established that all three licences must be issued by the same local authority (section 80(2), as explained in Dittah v Birmingham City Council [1993] RTR 356 (" Dittah"), and Shanks v North Tyneside Borough Council [2001] EWHC 533 (Admin) (" Shanks")). 7 "Operate", for this......
-
The Crown (on the Application of Ian Gordon Shanks, Paul Thomas Shanks and Jane Bell Trading as Blue Line Taxis) v The Council of the County of Northumberland
...be issued by the same local authority: section 80(2) as explained in Dittah v Birmingham City Council, Choudhry v Birmingham City Council [1993] RTR 356 and Shanks v North Tyneside Borough Council [2001] EWHC 533 (Admin), [2001] All ER (D) 344 (June). 17. A "private hire vehicle" is defined......
-
Uber Britannia Ltd v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
...enforcement, in respect of any hiring, all three licences must be issued by the same local authority ( Dittah v Birmingham City Council [1993] RTR 356), something which has been called “the trinity of requirements”. 7 Again as part of the regulatory and enforcement scheme, section 56 requir......
-
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler and Others
...It is well-established that all three licences must be issued by the same local authority: section 80(2) as explained in Dittah v Birmingham City Council, Choudhry v Brmingham City Council [1993] RTR 356 and Shanks v North Tyneside Borough Council [2001] EWHC 533 (Admin), [2001] All ER (D) ......
Request a trial to view additional results