Shanks v North Tyneside Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LATHAM,MR JUSTICE FORBES |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 533 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | NO: CO/1018/01 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 29 June 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 533 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Lord Justice Latham and
Mr Justice Forbes
NO: CO/1018/01
MISS CHERIE BOOTH QC and MISS DEOK JOO (instructed by Nicholson & Morgan, 14 Bell Villas, Ponteland, Northumberland NE20 9BE) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR J MCGUINNESS QC (instructed by North Tyneside Council, Legal Services, 14 Northumberland Square, North Shields, Tyne & Wear NE30 1PZ) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
The appellants jointly traded as Blue Line Taxis and jointly held an operator's licence for private hire vehicles issued by the respondent pursuant to section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The respondent refused to renew that licence on 22nd June 1999 on the grounds that the appellants had been operating in contravention of section 46(1)(e) of the Act in that they had operated private hire vehicles in the North Tyneside controlled district when those vehicles and drivers were not licensed by the respondent. The appellants exercised their right under section 62(3) of the Act to appeal to the Magistrates' Court. Their appeal was dismissed on 10th February 2000. The appellants now appeal to this court by way of case stated.
The facts are essentially agreed. The business had been started by the appellants' late father in 1958, and had remained a family concern ever since. The appellants all hold hackney and private hire driver licences granted under the Act by the respondent, and five private hire vehicles which are licensed under the Act by the respondent. A further 150 drivers and vehicles licensed by the respondent were operated by the appellants. Since 1958, neither the appellants nor any previous family member has ever been convicted of any offence under the legislation governing the use of taxis or private hire vehicles. It was accepted throughout the proceedings on behalf of the respondent that the appellants had conducted their business properly, save for the contravention which was alleged.
The problem arose out of the fact that the second and third appellants started a similar business in Newcastle, which trades as Blue Line (Newcastle). They were granted an operator's licence by Newcastle City Council and operated vehicles and drivers licensed by that Council. Not surprisingly, the two businesses sought to cooperate in order to provide as effective a service to their customers as they could. The two areas, that is the respondent's area and the area of Newcastle City Council, were divided into zones. The private hire vehicles operated by both firms were fitted with a device enabling them to communicate with a computer system with terminals at the operating centres of each firm and a main computer in the appellants' Wallsend office. The system enabled the drivers of the vehicles to identify their whereabouts to the computer system. The booking clerks at the firm's offices could therefore, in turn, identify the nearest available private hire vehicle from either firm which could take that booking whether it was licensed by the respondent or Newcastle City Council. The two firms operated in this or a similar way from about June 1996. From that time, their business cards read:
"Please note we have cars licensed in both Newcastle and north Tyneside, we shall endeavour to dispatch to you the quickest or nearest car for your convenience."
Clearly, this system has advantages for customers in that it is likely to afford for them a better service. It also has advantages for the firms and for their drivers because it is more efficient for drivers in that they can utilise their time more efficiently and, in particular, make fewer journeys without passengers. Approximately 3 million passengers have been carried under this system since 1996. Before putting the system into effect, the appellants informed the respondent's licensing officers of what was proposed. It was not until 1999 that objection was taken by way of refusal to renew the operator's licence. The reason for refusal, upheld by the magistrates, was that the licence to operate only entitled them to operate vehicles and drivers which had licences granted by the respondent. None of the vehicles or drivers used by the two firms were licensed by both the respondent and Newcastle City Council. It followed that whenever a booking was taken by the appellants, which was effected by a driver or vehicle licensed by Newcastle City Council, it was acting unlawfully. The magistrates concluded that the appellants, as holders of an operator's licence issued by the respondent, could only operate in the area of the respondent vehicles and drivers licensed by the respondent. The fact they were licensed by an authority did not make the activity lawful, and that when the appellants passed a booking to Blue Line (Newcastle) the appellants were operating the vehicle then used for the purposes of the Act.
All the relevant statutory provisions are contained in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Section 46 provides as follows:
"(1) Except as authorised by this Part of this Act:
(a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage or London cab in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act;
(b) no person shall in a controlled district act as driver of any private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 51 of this Act;
(c) no person being the proprietor of a private hire vehicle licence under this Part of this Act shall employ as the driver thereof for the purpose of any hiring any person who does not have a current licence under the said section 51;
(d) no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act;
(e) no person licensed under the said section 55 shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle-
(i) if for the vehicle a current licence under the said section 48 is not in force; or
(ii) if the driver does not have a current licence under the said section 51.
(2) If any person knowingly contravenes the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence."
Section 48 sets out the provisions as to the licensing of private hire vehicles. Subsection (1) gives to the relevant authority the power to license a vehicle if it considers the vehicle is suitable in type, size, and design, and not of a design and appearance likely to lead a person to believe that it was a hackney carriage, in suitable mechanical condition, safe and comfortable; subsection (2) empowers an authority to attach conditions to the grant of a licence.
Section 50 imposes an obligation on proprietors of licensed vehicles to present them for inspection and testing at appropriate intervals.
Section 51 provides for the grant of licences by authorities to drivers if satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
Section 55 provides for the grant of a licence to operate private hire vehicles provided that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.
Section 75 provides:
"(1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall-
(a) apply to a vehicle used for bringing passengers or goods within a controlled district in pursuance of a contract for the hire of the vehicle made outside the district if the vehicle is not made available for hire within the district…
(2) Paragraphs (a), and (b) and (c) of section 46(1) of this Act shall not apply to the use or driving of a vehicle or to the employment of a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle is used as a private hire vehicle in a controlled district if a licence issued under section 48 of this Act by the council whose area consists of or includes another controlled district is then in force for the vehicle and the driver's licence issued by such a council is then in force for the driver of the vehicle."
Section 80 provides:
"(1) In this Part of the Act, unless the subject or context otherwise requires…
'operate' means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle…
(2) In this Part of this Act references to a licence, in connection with a controlled district, are references to a licence issued by the council whose area consists of or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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
...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 for the purposes of the 1976 Act as fo......
-
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler and Others
...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) 344 (June). 17 A “private hire vehicle” is defined for the purposes of the 1976 Act as follows (section 80(1)): “priva......
-
Blue Line Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd v The Council of the City of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
...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 purpose, means "in the course of business to make provision for th......
-
Sheffield City Taxis / Mercury Taxis (Sheffield) merger inquiry
...hire transport pricing in the UK.15 Hackney fares are regulated by local authorities. In Shanks v North Tyneside Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 533 it was put to the court that ‘provided that the operator uses vehicles and drivers which are licensed by any authority then that accords wit......