Shanks & Ors (t/a Blue Line Taxis), R (on the application of) v The Council of the County of Northumberland

A licensing authority may attach conditions to a hackney carriage proprietor’s licence under section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 where the conditions are reasonably necessary to further the statutory licensing objectives. Those conditions may require records of the vehicle’s use, including pre-booked private hire work outside the licensing area. Such record-keeping does not unlawfully restrain the proprietor’s existing ability to undertake private hire work. The authority may use the information obtained when deciding whether to grant or renew a licence in a later year. Questions about the reasonableness or workability of particular conditions may be addressed on appeal to the Magistrates’ Court.

The claimants operated hackney carriages licensed by Northumberland while also operating as a private hire operator licensed by another authority. Northumberland adopted a policy requiring certain hackney carriage proprietors to keep detailed records of journeys, including pre-booked hirings undertaken for private hire operators outside Northumberland.

The claimants challenged the policy as ultra vires, irrational and unworkable. They argued that hackney carriage and private hire licensing were separate regimes and that private hire use of a hackney carriage was unlicensed and unrestricted. The central issues were whether section 47 permitted the proposed conditions and whether the conditions were reasonably necessary, rational and workable.

1. Claim dismissed. The proposed policy was within Northumberland’s statutory powers and the challenges failed.
2. Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 confers a discretion to grant a licence to use a hackney carriage to ply for hire within the licensing authority’s area. Section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 permits conditions to be attached to that licence where the authority considers them reasonably necessary. The conditions must further the objectives of the two statutory regimes, particularly public safety and effective local control.
3. The separate statutory regimes do not prevent the authority from considering how a proposed hackney carriage will be used. The reasoning in Fidler v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council [2010] EWCA 2430 (Admin), Britain v ABC Cabs (Camberley) Ltd [1981] RTR 395 and Brentwood Borough Council v Gladen [2004] EWHC 2500 (Admin), [2005] RTR 152 supported the conclusion that a hackney carriage remains excluded from the statutory definition of a private hire vehicle, wherever it is licensed.
4. The record-keeping conditions did not prevent present private hire use of the vehicles and therefore did not constitute an unlawful restraint of trade. Any later refusal or renewal decision would be an individual, evidence-based decision made in the light of the information gathered.
5. The obligation on a proprietor to ensure that records were kept was not irrational merely because the driver would usually make the entries. It would probably be treated as a best-endeavours obligation. The inconvenience of the requirements did not make them inherently irrational or unworkable. The policy should, however, remain under review and be amended if particular requirements proved unworkable. Appeals concerning the reasonableness of conditions could be brought before the Magistrates’ Court under section 47(3).

not stated in the judgment.