Scott, R (on the application of) v Heathrow Airport Ltd

An airport operator exercising a power to prohibit entry must act reasonably and fairly, but the circumstances do not invariably require prior warning or an opportunity to make representations before the prohibition is issued. Relevant conduct may include reported breaches of airport byelaws, even where no prosecution or conviction followed, and conduct occurring more than six months earlier. A legitimate expectation of prior consultation requires a clear assurance or established practice. Where a prohibition remains in force until further notice, fairness may be satisfied by allowing representations after its issue and by considering subsequent information.

The claimant, a licensed London hackney carriage driver, sought judicial review of a notice issued by the airport operator prohibiting him from entering Heathrow except as a bona fide airline passenger or to drop off a booked fare. The notice relied on alleged touting, unauthorised use of taxi bays and leaving his vehicle unattended in a restricted pick-up lane.

He challenged the decision as unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The central issues were whether the regulatory provisions applied to his conduct, whether the operator could rely on reported incidents that had not resulted in convictions or had occurred more than six months earlier, and whether fairness or legitimate expectation required prior warning or consultation.

1. The claim was dismissed. The operator had material on which it could reasonably and responsibly issue the prohibition and maintain it.
2. The amended Article 13(ii) of the Heathrow Airport–London (Waiting and Loading Restriction) Order 1996 exempted authorised radio or computer-circuit taxis, not every London taxi. The claimant, who was not a circuit member, was therefore not entitled to use the radio taxi bays. The regulatory scheme had to be construed as a whole, consistently with the approach in Cinnamond v British Airports Authority [1980] 1 WLR 582.
3. The claimant could not rely on Article 11 to justify leaving his vehicle unattended in the arrivals pick-up lane. That provision was a limited exception to the waiting restriction and did not override signs prohibiting unattended vehicles.
4. The operator could consider reported observations of byelaw breaches even where they had not been admitted or proved in criminal proceedings. It could also consider relevant conduct extending beyond the six-month prosecution period and conduct occurring after the notice when deciding whether to maintain it.
5. Fairness did not require a warning in every case. The claimant had received a police warning explaining that further breaches might lead to prohibition or injunction. There was no sufficiently clear assurance or established practice creating a legitimate expectation of a prior warning or consultation. The continuing nature of the prohibition allowed the claimant to seek clarification and make representations afterwards.
6. The notice inaccurately described the claimant as having been ejected from or arrested on the listed occasions, but the material consideration was the alleged conduct, not the response to it. The process, viewed as a whole, was fair.