Gateshead Council v Henderson

Whether a vehicle is plying for hire is a question of fact. The usual considerations include whether the vehicle is on view, whether the driver expressly or impliedly invites the public to use it, and whether a member of the public could use it if desired. A private hire vehicle is not automatically plying for hire merely because its driver accepts an unsolicited request while it is stationary. The surrounding circumstances remain decisive, including whether the vehicle is parked or merely stopped, whether an existing passenger transaction is continuing, and whether the vehicle is positioned near a taxi rank or other potential source of custom.

Gateshead Council appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by Gateshead justices of an information alleging that Paul Henderson had been plying for hire in a private hire vehicle without the requisite licence, contrary to section 45 of the Town and Police Clauses Act 1847. Council enforcement officers approached the vehicle while an existing passenger was completing a fare transaction and requested transport to a hotel. The justices found that Henderson had not invited or encouraged public use of the vehicle and acquitted him.

The central questions were whether the justices had applied the correct definition of plying for hire and whether the facts compelled a finding that the vehicle was being used as a Hackney carriage.

1. Appeal dismissed. The justices had reached a decision open to a reasonable bench properly directing itself on the facts found.
2. Section 45 of the Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 makes it an offence to stand or ply for hire without a Hackney carriage licence. A private hire vehicle must be pre-booked through a licensed operator before the journey begins. The absence of a booking was relevant, but it did not create an automatic rule that every acceptance of an unsolicited request amounted to plying for hire.
3. There is no comprehensive and authoritative definition of plying for hire. The question is fact-sensitive. Relevant features include whether the vehicle is on view, whether the driver expressly or impliedly invites the public to use it, and whether a member of the public could use it if he wished.
4. The decisions in Ogwr Borough Council v Baker [1989] COD 489 and Nottingham City Council v Woodings [1994] RTR 72 supported that approach, but were materially distinguishable. In those cases the vehicles were parked or positioned in circumstances suggesting an invitation to custom. Here the vehicle was stationary but not parked, was not near a taxi rank, and an existing passenger was still completing a fare transaction when the officers approached.
5. Cogley v Sherwood [1959] 2 QB 311 and Sales v Lake [1922] 1KB 553 also supported the approach. There was no order for costs.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of case stated, dismissed the appeal from the decision of the Gateshead justices. No order for costs.