Maud v Castle Point Borough Council

Under section 16 of the Transport Act 1985, a licensing authority may limit hackney carriage licences only if satisfied that no significant demand for taxi services remains unmet. Current demand is not confined to visible queues or passenger delays. Evidence of suppressed demand, and of private hire vehicles being used unlawfully for rank hirings, may be taken into account.

A licence condition preventing a hackney carriage from plying for hire in part of the licensing district is outside the power conferred by section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Such a condition would create different classes of licensed taxi and conflict with the policy of promoting open competition.

The appellant, a licensed taxi driver, challenged the respondent borough council’s decision to remove its limit of 37 hackney carriage licences and permit free entry to the market. The decision followed a Halcrow Fox survey which identified current unmet demand, including private hire vehicles undertaking rank hirings and evidence of suppressed demand.

Mr Justice Wilson dismissed the application for judicial review in the Administrative Court on 18 February 2002. The appeal concerned whether the council could restrict licences by geographical conditions, whether it had lawfully assessed unmet demand, and whether the survey evidence justified its conclusion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The council’s decision to remove entry control was lawful.
2. Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, as amended by the Public Health Act 1875, contemplated a hackney carriage licence to ply for hire throughout the relevant urban district. Section 47(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 did not authorise a condition preventing a taxi from plying for hire at particular ranks, streets or parts of the district. Such a condition would produce a two-tier system of licensed taxis and would be inconsistent with the open-market policy introduced by section 16 of the Transport Act 1985.
3. The authority was entitled to consider evidence beyond passenger queues and waiting times when assessing whether significant demand was unmet. The statutory reference to present demand did not exclude convincing evidence of suppressed demand, such as people who wanted taxis but used less satisfactory alternatives because taxis were unavailable.
4. The 150 weekly journeys by private hire vehicles leaving ranks with passengers could properly be treated as current demand for taxi services. Halcrow Fox had observed the journeys and concluded that they were unlawful rank hirings. The council was entitled to rely on that expert evidence.
5. R v Brighton Borough Council ex p Bunch [1989] COD 558 did not require the authority to disregard the evidence. That case concerned an assumption of latent demand unsupported by survey evidence, whereas the present case involved evidence of actual rank hirings and suppressed demand.

Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Justice Kennedy agreed with Lord Justice Keene. The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to detailed assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal and ordered costs subject to detailed assessment.
• Administrative Court, High Court: Mr Justice Wilson dismissed the application for judicial review on 18 February 2002.