Johnson, R (on the application of) v Reading Borough Council

A local authority has a very wide discretion to increase the number of hackney carriage licences, including by removing numerical restrictions altogether. A demand survey identifying the minimum number required to avoid unlawfully refusing licences does not fetter that discretion or prevent the authority from granting more. Judicial review is concerned with legality and rationality, not the merits of the licensing decision. Substantial weight should be given to the judgment of democratically elected councillors who have consulted interested parties and considered relevant local information.

The claimant, acting for the Reading Taxi Drivers’ Association, sought judicial review of Reading Borough Council’s decision to issue 30 additional hackney carriage licences. A commissioned survey had recommended eight additional licences to eliminate significant unmet demand. The claimant argued that the Council had misunderstood the survey, relied on irrelevant considerations and acted irrationally in selecting 30 licences. The Council relied on its broad statutory discretion and the rational consideration of local evidence, consultation responses and the prospect of future deregulation.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Council’s decision was lawful and was not irrational.
2. The statutory scheme gave the Council an exceptionally wide discretion. It could increase the number of licences by more than the number identified by the survey and could ultimately remove numerical restrictions altogether. The survey’s recommendation of eight licences identified the number needed to address the statutory issue of significant unmet demand. It did not constrain the Council’s wider discretion.
3. The approach in R v Great Yarmouth Borough Council, ex parte Sawyer 1989 RTR 297 supported substantial judicial restraint. The decision of democratically elected councillors, reached after adequate consultation, should not be examined in an over-refined or over-legalistic manner.
4. The Committee was entitled to regard the survey as concentrating particularly on Reading railway station, despite its stated borough-wide scope. It could also consider evidence about unmet demand elsewhere, illegal plying for hire by private hire vehicles, police views, representations from transport interests, premiums on licence plates and the councillors’ own local knowledge.
5. The Committee was entitled to rely on the licensing officer’s advice that 30 licences would be lawful in the context of moving towards deregulation. The reasons recorded in the minutes provided a rational basis for the decision.

The defendant was entitled to its costs, subject to reductions in the costs schedule agreed or ordered after submissions.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No earlier decision is stated in the judgment.