Sales v Lake
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1922 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Local Government - Stage Carriage - Charabanc - Charabanc Excursions - “Plies for hire” -
The respondents advertised charabanc excursions to Brighton. Passengers purchased tickets before the time of departure at the offices of the respondents' agents, and arranged at the same time where they were to be picked up. After the number of passengers was ascertained the respondents hired a charabanc, the driver of which proceeded to pick up the passengers holding tickets at the places, being public streets, previously arranged as above. He was not authorized to and did not pick up any other persons en route:—
Held, that the charabanc was not plying for hire within the meaning of para. 17 (2.) of the Order (Statutory Rules and Orders (1917 — No. 426)), dated May 1, applying the provisions of s. 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, which enacts that if an unlicensed stage carriage “plies for hire” there shall be a penalty.
CASE stated by a Metropolitan Police Magistrate.
On July 28, 1921, the respondents, H. J. Lake, H. Caney, and Charabancs (London), Ld. (called herein “the company”), were charged on an information laid by the appellant Sales at the Westminster Police Court that Lake, on June 12, 1921, was the driver of an unlicensed carriage which unlawfully plied for hire in Grosvenor Gardens within the metropolitan police district, that Caney was the owner of an unlicensed carriage which unlawfully so plied for hire, and that Charabancs (London), Ld., on June 12, 1921, did unlawfully aid and abet the said Lake in the commission of the offence so charged.
By s. 4 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 115): “In this Act ‘stage carriage’ shall mean any carriage for the conveyance of passengers which plies for hire in any public street, road, or place within the limits of this Act, and in which the passengers or any of them are charged to pay separate and distinct or at the rate of separate and distinct fares for their respective places or seats therein. ‘Hackney carriage’ shall mean any carriage for the conveyance of passengers which plies for hire within the limits of this Act, and is not a stage carriage.” By s. 7: “If any unlicensed hackney or stage carriage plies for hire” there shall be a penalty. And further: “Any …. stage carriage plying for hire …. shall be deemed to be an unlicensed carriage.” And an Order made by the Home Secretary under the powers conferred on him by s. 3 of the
The following facts, taken from the judgment of Lord Trevethin C.J., were admitted or proved: “On June 12, 1921, a charabanc with hackney carriage plates and yearly road licence affixed was driven by the respondent Lake to Grosvenor Gardens, in the metropolitan police district, where it stopped, and several persons were seen to approach the said Lake with tickets which he inspected. He then allowed the bearers of the tickets to board the charabanc. This was in accordance with the practice described below. The respondent Caney was the owner of the said charabanc, which had not been licensed under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, to ply for hire within the metropolitan police district. The said charabanc had been hired on June 11, 1921, from the respondent Caney by the respondents Charabancs (London), Ld., for the purpose of conveying passengers on June 12, 1921, from London to Brighton. The business of the company is to organize tours from London to various parts of the country, and for this purpose agents are appointed in various parts of London and the provinces for the purpose of supplying information and issuing tickets to intending passengers, and advertisements are issued advertising the trips. The seats are booked by the passengers and the tickets are paid for before the journey, and when the tickets have been issued and the number of passengers for the particular journey ascertained it is the practice of the company to hire a charabanc from the said Caney to carry the passengers, and this practice was followed in this case. Numerous advertisements are exhibited by the company containing an illustration of a charabanc and announcing day and half-day tours to the seaside and countryside, starting from Charing Cross, and picking up passengers en route at Grosvenor Gardens, Vauxhall Bridge Road, and other places every day in each week from March 7 to September 30...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Greyhound Motors v Lambert
-
Patricia Jones and Another v First Greater Western Ltd
...required before a carriage is plying for hire. It can be plying for hire merely to wait in the street, available to passengers (see Sales v Lake [1922] 1KB 553 at pages 557 to 558). Later cases suggest that it is the exhibition of the vehicle for hire through the agency of the driver whi......
-
Eventech Ltd (Claimant) The Parking Adjudicator (Defendant) London Borough of Camden and Another (Interested Parties)
...is permitted to "ply for hire" in London. There is no statutory definition of those words, but at common law it is interpreted (see Sales v Lakes and others [1922] 1 KB 553 at 557–558 per Lord Trevithin CJ), as meaning soliciting or waiting for passengers without a prior booking. Thus, alt......
-
R United Trade Action Group Ltd v Transport for London
...in this case, the customer could not use the respondent's car without making a prior booking through the App. As with the charabanc in Sales v Lake, the customer would make a booking to be picked up at a pre-arranged point. On the evidence in this case, all the Uber App did was to facilitat......