TAIT v CENTRAL RADIO TAXIS (TOLLCROSS) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 21 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Date | 21 October 1988 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
FIRST DIVISION.
Lord Wylie.
Administration of justiceNatural justiceDomestic tribunalPrejudiceDisciplinary committee member leaving hearing after making clear his hostility towards pursuer and being replaced by anotherWhether proceedings tainted by prejudiceWhether opportunity for injustice to be done.
Administration of justiceNatural justiceDomestic tribunalPrevious disciplinary record before disciplinary committee outwith presence of pursuerNo opportunity afforded to pursuer to correct, contradict, or comment upon entries relating thereto in minute bookWhether opportunity afforded for injustice to be done.
EvidenceForm of evidenceSufficiencyDomestic tribunalComplainer not called as a witnessHearsayComplaint relayed to disciplinary committee by convenor thereof without assessment of complainer's credibility and reliabilityWhether disciplinary proceedings vitiated.
A member of the public complained to a radio-taxi company in respect of the behaviour of a taxi-driver in picking up a fare. The taxi-driver was thereafter subjected to a disciplinary committee hearing. After the hearing had commenced one of the committee members left on making clear his hostility towards the taxi-driver. This member was replaced by another member of the company's council. Outwith the presence of the taxi-driver the convener of the committee laid before the members thereof a minute book containing entries pertaining to the taxi-driver's previous disciplinary hearings before that committee. These minutes had been drawn up and noted by the respective chairmen of the committees concerned. No opportunity was given to the taxi-driver to correct, contradict, or comment upon the entries in the minute book either in exculpation or in mitigation of penalty. The complainer was not called as a witness. Her complaint was relayed to the committee through the convener without the convener having given them any assessment as to her credibility or reliability. The committee upheld the complaint as being probably true and requested the taxi-driver to resign his membership or be barred from membership. The driver resigned and failed to attend an appeal committee hearing. Thereafter he raised an action in the Outer House of the Court of Session but was unsuccessful before the Lord Ordinary (Wylie). He reclaimed to the Inner House.
Held (rev. judgment of Lord Wylie) that the minuted records of the pursuer had been used as evidence without his knowledge and without his having had an opportunity to deal with their contents and an opportunity accordingly had been afforded for injustice to be done; and reclaiming motion allowed.
Dicta of Lord President Clyde in Barrs v. British Wool Marketing BoardSC1957 S.C. 72 at pp. 823 and of Lord Jenkins in University of Ceylon v. FernandoWLR [1960] 1 W.L.R. 223 at p. 234 followed.
Opinion (approving the Lord Ordinary (Wylie)) that the proceedings had not been vitiated by the original member of the committee leaving in the circumstances he did, the new member not having overheard the prior proceedings and not seeing the original member leaving.
Opinion further that there was no reason why the domestic tribunal should not have disposed of the complaint simply by hearing details of it from the convener, who placed it before the committee, because he had concluded that it was a serious one, seriously made, and the pursuer's response. The important matter for the committee was then to reach a decision by evaluating the pursuer's response and his credibility. In the nature of things a disciplinary committee of a small association such as the defenders' could not reasonably be required to do more.
Malcolm Dewar Tait raised an action against Central Radio Taxis (Tollcross) Ltd. concluding for damages in reparation for loss and damage caused inter alia by reason of the defenders' actings allegedly in breach of natural justice.
The following summary of the facts is taken from the opinion of the Lord Ordinary (Wylie):"For some nine years or thereby the pursuer, who is a taxi owner, was a member of the defenders, referred to in evidence as C.R.T.. The defenders were incorporated in May 1968 and carry on the business of providing radio telephony facilities for their members as taxicab drivers and owners. There are one hundred members of the company. No. 16 of process is a pro forma intimation requiring the pursuer's attendance at the company office on 21st June 1982, at 13.00 hours, to answer a complaint. It was signed by Mr R. J. Ford who at that time was convener of the defenders' disciplinary committee and who stated in evidence that he learned of the complaint from a note handed to him by the telephonist. The complaint related to the attitude of a driver, whom Mr Ford was able to identify as the pursuer from the job slip. According to the pursuer he only learned of the complaint from Mr Ford when he picked up the notice at the office, at which time Mr Ford could be no more specific than to inform him that a customer had alleged that he had been abusive towards her. He suggested to Mr Ford that he should contact the lady and preferably obtain a letter from her to substantiate the complaint, a course of action which he had advised on previous occasions. I prefer the evidence of Mr Ford that he telephoned the complainer, a Mrs Aktar, from Wester Hailes, when he received notification of the complaint and had made an initial assessment of the complaint before he spoke to the pursuer and before he signed the note requiring his attendance to answer the complaint. This was in accordance with practice as on many occasions a complaint merely called for a private word with the driver without the involvement of the discipline committee. The pursuer duly attended before the committee on the date and at the time specified. Initially the committee consisted of Messrs Clark, Mellors and Robb, in addition to the convener and no. 30 of process are the minutes of the meeting taken by the convener. These record the terms of the complaint, as narrated by the convener, as follows: A complaint was received from Mrs Aktar, 12/4 Wester Hailes Drive against P/19. M. Tait. She complained about Mr Tait's attitude whilst she was being conveyed from the above address to Sighthill Health Centre. On entering the taxi the three children accompanying Mrs Aktar apparently climbed on the seats and Mr Tait requested Mrs Aktar to keep them off same. It appears that from this point until the journey was completed Mrs Aktar and Mr Tait exchanged words [making] reference to the taxi arriving late and the price on the meter. At the conclusion of the journey, again words were exchanged and, according to Mrs Aktar, Mr Tait made reference to her being a Paki. This Mr Tait denies emphatically. Mrs Aktar requested that Mr Tait should not be sent for her again. The minute goes on to record that at that point Mr Tait made reference to a similar request having come from a Mrs Levy being alleged against him by Mr Clark. The pursuer maintains that this issue was raised by Mr Clark although the evidence of the other witnesses present was in accordance with the terms of the minute. In any event, it is not disputed that at this point Mr Clark left the meeting and although the minute simply records that he did so saying that he had no wish to become involved with Mr Tait it is clear that his animosity towards the pursuer was expressed in no uncertain terms. According to the pursuer he stated, I don't have to listen to this garbage from this man. According to Mr Clark he stated that he did not wish to listen to the rubbish which the pursuer normally said at these meetings. This is a reference to the fact that, according to Mr Clark and one or two other witnesses, the pursuer had denied taking on the job at all. This particular allegation is not recorded in the minutes, it was not put to the pursuer, it was not spoken to in evidence by the convener, and I reject it. There may well be an element of confusion arising between the pursuer's attitude towards this complaint and his attitude on a prior occasion. In any event, Mr Clark was replaced by another committee member, Mr Brown; the convener went over the ground again and as Mr Clark had left before the pursuer had completed his explanation he likewise went over it again. The explanation as spoken to in evidence by the pursuer shortly stated was as follows: This job had been called over for some time. As there was no car in the area he accepted it from the Haymarket area. When he arrived at Wester Hailes there was a 20p excess on the meter. The lady was waiting with her three children and was agitated at being late for her appointment at the health centre. He tried to explain to her that he had travelled out from the city centre and when the children climbed onto the seat he asked her to get them to sit down. After he set off they climbed back onto the seat, which he found distracting, and he had an oral confrontation with her. He took her to the health centre and discharged the fare. There was no abuse and in particular there was no reference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition Of Strathclyde Joint Police Board V. Alison Mckinlay For Judicial Review
...ex parte St Germain (No.2) [1979] 1 WLR 1401, Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd [1984] AC 808 and Tait v Central Radio Taxis (Tollcross) Ltd 1989 SLT 217. [36]Thirdly, the medical referee failed to recognise that he was presented with conflicting evidence. He failed to recognise that questions of......
-
Petition Of Dumfries & Galloway Council For Judicial Review
...Brentnall v Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1986 S.L.T. 471, at pages 488-489; Tait v Central Radio Taxis (Tollcross) Ltd., 1989 S.L.T. 217, at page 221D. (iv) The duty to give reasons for the decision [44] There had been a further breach of natural justice because of a failure to giv......
-
R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Johangir Ahmed
...Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte WeerasuriyaUNK [1982] Imm AR 23: [1983] 1 All ER 195. Tait v Central Radio Taxis (Tollcross) Limited [1989] SLT 217. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Johangir Ahmed (unreported, CS, 28 May 1993). Natural justice deportation conduci......
-
Nemah Shehadeh V. The Advocate General For Scotland
...even though damages can incidentally be awarded. (emphasis added). 63 See, for example, Tait v Central Radio Taxis (Tollcross) Ltd, 1989 SLT 217 64 The case of Gray v Smart (1892) 19 R. 692, where the pursuer sought damages for a breach of the statutory procedure for a sale under warrant as......
-
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC LAW: CHALLENGING THE PRECONCEPTIONS OF A TROUBLED TAXONOMY.
...Court of Session, despite being conducted outside the prescribed procedure for judicial review: Tait v Central Radio Taxis (Tollcross) Ltd 1989 SC 4. This followed a line of authority on procedural fairness which applied similarly to contractual arbiters: Barrs v British Wool Marketing Boar......
-
Contractual Discretion and Administrative Discretion: A Unified Analysis
...d (1874) LR 9 Ex D 190 at 196.115 A recent Scottish example, with strong echoes ofWo o d vWo a d ,isTa i t vCentralRadioTaxi (Tollcross)Ltd1989 SC 4 (Inner House, Courtof Session). See further below, 580^583.116 RvPanelonTakeovers and Mergers, ex parteData¢n plc above n 65.Contractual Discr......