McNutt v Transport for London

The court considered the construction of the duty in section 165(4)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, namely the prohibition on a taxi driver "not to make any additional charge" for carrying a disabled person in a wheelchair, and the criminal sanction in section 165(7) for failing to comply. The key legal principle is that "making a charge" includes creating a financial liability or commitment on the passenger by switching on a taximeter or by giving an indication of an inflated fare at or before hiring.

The court held that in a taxi fitted with a taximeter a passenger becomes financially liable for the metered fare no later than the point at which the meter is started, so starting the meter before a wheelchair user and their wheelchair have been loaded imposes an additional charge and, if done in breach of the duty, will constitute an offence under section 165(7). The same principle applies to private hire vehicles and to taxis outside London where meters or fare estimates create analogous financial commitments.

The court relied on statutory context (including the London Cab Order 1934 and related taxi fare provisions), the legislative history of the provision in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and statutory guidance to reject the argument that an actual demand at the end of a journey is a prerequisite for there to be a "charge".

Background and parties:

• The appellant, a London hackney carriage driver, was convicted at Hendon Magistrates Court on 23 May 2018 of an offence under section 165(7) of the Equality Act 2010 for making an additional charge by switching on his taximeter when a wheelchair user was being loaded. Transport for London (TfL) prosecuted; the appellant appealed by way of case stated to the High Court.
• The factual matrix was that on 4 October 2017 the appellant started his taximeter before unlocking the wheelchair ramp for the complainant; the complainant did not enter his taxi and no payment was made to him.

Nature of the application:

• The case stated posed two questions to the High Court: (1) whether the appellant made an additional charge for carrying the wheelchair user on the given date; and (2) whether the magistrates erred in law in convicting the appellant under section 165(7).

Issues framed by the court:

• How the phrase "make any additional charge" in section 165(4)(b) should be construed: whether it requires an actual demand or receipt of payment at the end of a journey, or whether it includes acts which impose a financial liability (for example, starting a taximeter or indicating an inflated fare) at or before hiring.

Reasoning and statutory context:

• The court analysed the statutory wording in context, including the origins of the provision in section 36 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the policy aim of ensuring equal access for wheelchair users, and the detailed regulatory framework for fares and taximeters in London (including the London Cab Order 1934 and the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907).
• The court held that the noun "charge" is properly read to include a financial liability or commitment and that in the context of a metered taxi the passenger becomes liable for the metered fare no later than when the meter is started. Allowing a contrary construction would permit drivers to avoid the statutory duty by indicating inflated fares or by starting meters before loading and then refusing to demand payment, contrary to the mischief the provisions were intended to remedy. The court also found that giving an inflated fare indication is a contingent financial liability and caught by the same prohibition.
• The court considered and applied statutory guidance issued under section 167 and guidance from the Department for Transport and TfL, which supported the view that a meter should not be left running while the driver assists a wheelchair passenger.

Subsidiary findings and wider implications:

• The court explained that the principle applies to private hire vehicles and to taxis outside London, suitably adjusted for different statutory regimes and fare arrangements, and that criminal or contractual obligations reinforce the conclusion.
• The court observed that this was the first prosecution by TfL under section 165(7) for breach of section 165(4)(b), emphasising the importance of an interpretation that gives practical effect to the statutory duty.

Conclusion and relief sought:

• The appellant sought the High Court's opinion on the two posed questions. The court answered the questions in the affirmative to the first and negative to the second and dismissed the appeal, upholding the magistrates' view that activation of the meter before loading could constitute making an additional charge.

The appeal is dismissed. The court held that "make any additional charge" in section 165(4)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 includes acts that create a financial liability or commitment on the passenger, such as switching on a taximeter before a wheelchair user and their wheelchair have been loaded, and that such conduct can therefore constitute an offence under section 165(7). The court reasoned from statutory language, legislative history, regulatory context (including the London Cab Order 1934) and statutory guidance to avoid an interpretation that would permit drivers to evade the statutory duty.

Hendon Magistrates Court convicted the appellant on 23 May 2018 for an offence under section 165(7) Equality Act 2010; the case was stated to the High Court, which delivered judgment in McNutt v Transport for London [2019] EWHC 365 (Admin) on 21 February 2019, dismissing the appeal.