Cummings, R (on the application of) v Cardiff County Council

A local authority may revisit a policy limiting hackney carriage licences and decide to remove the limit, provided it approaches the question lawfully and considers the relevant material. A flawed earlier decision about allocating a limited number of licences does not automatically taint a later, distinct decision on de-limitation. The later decision is assessed on ordinary Wednesbury grounds. The authority must take account of relevant considerations and disregard irrelevant ones, but an inaccurate account of an earlier waiting list is immaterial where that list has no bearing on the later policy decision. The authority may change its policy, and a consultation undertaken with an open mind is a proper exercise of local government functions.

The appellant, a proprietor or part proprietor of taxi-operating companies, challenged the Cardiff County Council’s decision of 7 October 2003 to remove the numerical limit on hackney carriage vehicle licences. The challenge followed an earlier judicial review concerning the Council’s January 2003 decision to issue six additional licences by lottery rather than by reference to a waiting list. That earlier decision had been rescinded, and the lottery had been deferred after the appellant commenced proceedings.

On 8 April 2003 the Council resolved to consult the trade and consider removing numerical limits. Following consultation, the Council decided to de-limit the licensing system. Moses J refused judicial review on 27 October 2004. The central issue on appeal was whether defects in the earlier decision-making, including the inaccurate description of the waiting list and alleged failure to disclose the significance of the Halcrow report, rendered the October decision unlawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. The decision to remove the numerical limit was separate and independent from the earlier decision about how to allocate licences within a limited system. In the absence of bad faith or bias, deficiencies in the earlier allocation decision did not taint the later policy decision.
2. The Council was entitled to reconsider its policy. The January 2003 meeting had not made a considered decision on the merits of de-limitation. The April resolution to defer the lottery, consult the trade and obtain a further report was justified by the 512 applications and concerns about the potential harmful effects of monopoly ownership. The consultation process was a proper exercise of local government functions, assuming the Committee retained an open mind.
3. The Council’s decision fell to be examined on classic Wednesbury grounds. The Committee considered the arguments for and against de-limitation, including unmet demand, market effects, enforcement and quality control. It took into account no impermissible consideration and omitted no material consideration. Its conclusion was rational and one it was entitled to reach.
4. The Halcrow report did not contain a clear recommendation against de-limitation. Its advice was equivocal. The inaccurate description of the earlier waiting list was accepted as a defect, but the list was irrelevant to the October decision because the Council was deciding whether to remove the limit, not how to allocate licences under the former system.
5. No evidence established dishonesty, unfairness or bias. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs. The application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords and the application to extend the injunction pending such a petition were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the Administrative Court was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, and applications concerning a further appeal and continuation of the injunction were refused.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Moses J refused the appellant’s application for judicial review on 27 October 2004.