007 Taxis Stratford Ltd v Stratford-On-Avon District Council

A local authority may adopt a general hackney-carriage policy through its executive where individual licence applications remain subject to consideration against that policy and exceptions may be sought. A consultation is lawful if proposals are at a formative stage, sufficient reasons and time are provided, and responses are conscientiously considered. The court asks whether anything went clearly and radically wrong, allowing for the decision-maker’s discretion. The disability equality duty requires due regard to relevant needs, but does not require a particular result or a formal impact assessment. It is a substantive, rigorous and continuing duty, performed with an open mind. Judicial review examines legality, not the merits or desirability of the policy.

The claimant, a hackney-carriage operator, challenged the defendant council’s decision to require all new hackney-carriage licences from 1 January 2010 to relate to wheelchair-accessible vehicles, with the whole fleet to become wheelchair accessible by 1 January 2016. The policy was considered by the Licensing Committee in an open meeting and later approved by the Cabinet.

The claimant alleged inadequate consultation, failure to consider relevant guidance and economic and safety issues, that the Cabinet lacked vires under section 13 of the Local Government Act 2000 and the relevant regulations, and breach of section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The central questions were whether the Cabinet could adopt the policy and whether the consultation and disability equality duty had been lawfully addressed.

1. Vires. The Local Government Act 2000 and the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 reserved the licensing of individual hackney carriages to a non-executive function. The council’s policy did not itself impose an unconditional licence condition. It required each application to be considered against the policy and allowed exceptions for sound and compelling reasons. The Cabinet therefore adopted policy rather than exercising the reserved licensing function and acted within its powers.
2. Consultation. The test in Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213, incorporating the principles in R v Brent LBC ex parte Gunning [1986] 84 LGR 168, required consultation while the proposals remained formative, sufficient reasons for intelligent consideration and response, adequate time, and conscientious consideration of the responses. Under Regina on the application of Greenpeace Ltd v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the court asks whether anything went clearly and radically wrong.
3. The council had undertaken wide consultation, supplied sufficient information, allowed adequate time, held a further public hearing, considered the economic and accessibility issues, and took account of the responses. Further consultation was not required merely because time had elapsed or government policy had developed. The alleged legitimate expectation was unsupported. The consultation was therefore lawful.
4. Section 49A duty. The duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was a duty to have due regard to relevant disability-equality needs, not a duty to achieve a particular result. It required a conscious, substantive and rigorous consideration before and when the policy was decided, with an open mind and attention to relevant countervailing economic and practical factors. It did not require a formal disability equality impact assessment.
5. The council had considered the needs of wheelchair users, other disabled people and able-bodied users, together with the practical and economic consequences of the alternatives. The fact that the result might disadvantage some non-wheelchair users did not establish breach of the duty.
6. The court was concerned only with legality, not whether a 100 per cent wheelchair-accessible policy was good or bad. All grounds of challenge failed and the claim for judicial review was dismissed.