Leeds City Council, R (on the application of) v Taxi Centre (Newcastle-Upon-Tyne) Ltd

A public authority exercising a discretionary licensing power must not fetter its discretion by applying policy rigidly. It must keep open the possibility of departing from policy in an appropriate case and decide any departure lawfully. On a rehearing appeal under section 48 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the Crown Court may exercise the licensing authority’s powers and reach the fair and just result. It may depart from a newly adopted policy where there are good reasons, without first establishing a ground for judicial review such as legitimate expectation or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Taxi Centre applied to Leeds City Council for its Fiat Doblo to be placed on the approved list of hackney carriages. The application remained undecided for about 19 months while the Council reviewed its vehicle conditions. The Council subsequently adopted new conditions, under which the vehicle was ineligible, and refused the licence.

The Crown Court allowed Taxi Centre’s appeal, holding that the application should be considered under the former conditions, and remitted it to the Council. Leeds City Council appealed by Case Stated on questions concerning the effect of the new policy, legitimate expectation, delegated authority and reasonableness.

The central issue was whether the Crown Court had power to direct consideration under the former conditions notwithstanding the Council’s adoption of the new policy.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Crown Court had made no error of law in remitting the application for reconsideration under the former conditions.

2. The Council’s licensing power was discretionary. It could not lawfully fetter itself by following the new conditions blindly. It had to retain the possibility of departing from them in an appropriate case, keep an open mind, and ensure that any departure was lawful by reference to established public law criteria.

3. Applying the former conditions did not necessarily disregard the new policy. The Council would have to consider the policy and the factors said to justify departure. There were reasonable grounds here: vehicles complying with the former conditions were regarded as safe; the Council itself continued using those conditions for vehicles already on the approved list; the Council recognised that departure was possible; and no vehicle as manufactured complied with the new conditions.

4. Section 48(2)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 gave the Crown Court wide powers on a rehearing appeal. It could make an order it considered just and exercise any power which the Council could have exercised. That included considering the vehicle under the former conditions.

5. It was unnecessary to decide the questions concerning legitimate expectation, Wednesbury unreasonableness or the extent of Mr Broster’s delegated authority. The Crown Court was entitled to reach the fair and just result on the circumstances of the case. A ground for judicial review was not a necessary precondition; a good reason for departing from policy was sufficient.

6. The matter remained remitted to the Council for reconsideration. Leeds City Council was ordered to pay Taxi Centre’s costs of the appeal, assessed if not agreed.

• Crown Court at Leeds: Allowed Taxi Centre’s appeal against the Council’s refusal, held that the application should be considered under the former conditions, and remitted the matter to the Council.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed Leeds City Council’s Case Stated appeal and upheld the Crown Court’s decision.