007 Stratford Taxis Ltd., R (on the application of) v Stratford On Avon District Council

A local authority may adopt a general licensing policy through its executive where the policy is a plan or strategy, even though individual licensing decisions remain non-executive functions. A general policy does not become unlawful because individual licence conditions may be appealed to a magistrates’ court.

A decision-making body need not consider every detail personally. It must, however, have the main relevant issues and arguments drawn to its attention. A cabinet which adopts a committee recommendation without the material or an adequate summary may act procedurally unfairly. Relief in judicial review may nevertheless be refused where the claim was brought with undue delay and requiring reconsideration would be detrimental to good administration.

The claimant taxi operator sought judicial review of the district council’s policy that all new hackney carriages should have wheelchair access from 1 January 2010. The policy was recommended by the General Purposes Licensing Committee and adopted by the council’s cabinet on 15 December 2008.

The Recorder of Birmingham dismissed the claim: [2010] EWHC 1344 (Admin). The claimant appealed, challenging the cabinet’s competence, the adequacy of its consideration, the use of a policy rather than individual licence conditions, consultation, consideration of consultation responses, and compliance with the disability equality duty. The council contended that the judicial review claim had been commenced out of time.

Appeal dismissed. Although the first ground succeeded, the court refused an extension of time and granted no relief.

1. The cabinet was competent to adopt the wheelchair-access policy. Read together, sections 13(2) and 48(4) of the Local Government Act 2000 and regulations 2 and 5 of the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities (England)) Regulations 2000 distinguished a political decision to adopt a policy, plan or strategy from the exercise of the function of licensing individual hackney carriages. The former could be undertaken by the cabinet. The latter remained a non-executive function and had to be exercised in light of the policy.

2. A general policy was lawful. The right under section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to appeal a condition attached to an individual licence did not impliedly prohibit an antecedent policy. An individual appeal could still be pursued on grounds particular to that case.

3. The Recorder wrongly refused permission to argue that the cabinet had not adequately considered the relevant matters. The cabinet had adopted the committee recommendation after very short consideration, without the committee material or an adequate account of its reasons. A decision-maker need not examine every factual or argumentative detail, but must have its attention drawn to the main lines of relevant debate. This was a significant procedural flaw.

4. The court upheld the Recorder’s findings that consultation and the committee’s consideration of its responses were adequate. The evidence supported the conclusion that no clear and radical unfairness in the consultation process had occurred. It also upheld the finding that the committee had had due regard to the relevant needs of disabled persons for section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

5. Had proceedings been brought promptly, the procedural flaw would have warranted relief. The claimant delayed substantially after learning of the cabinet decision, without a persuasive excuse. The court declined to extend time and, under section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, held that requiring reconsideration after the elapsed time would be detrimental to good administration.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal. It held that the cabinet’s process was significantly flawed, but refused to extend time and granted no relief.
• High Court, Administrative Court: The Recorder of Birmingham dismissed the judicial review claim: [2010] EWHC 1344 (Admin).