Jones & Anor v First Greater Western Ltd
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
- LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellants challenged the introduction of a permit scheme by First Greater Western Limited at the Bristol Temple Meads station, arguing it restricted access to a public taxi stand. The court upheld the legality of the permit scheme, stating that statutory provisions did not imply unrestricted access for taxi drivers and that the landowner retained control over access to their land.
Judgment
Lord Justice Floyd:
Introduction
In these proceedings, the appellants Patricia Jones and Mourad Tighilt, who sue on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Bristol branch of the National Taxi Association, claim that the introduction by the respondent First Greater Western Limited of a taxi permit scheme at the public taxi rank at Bristol Temple Meads station (“BTM”) was unlawful. After a trial in Bristol, HHJ McCahill QC sitting as a High Court Judge, held that the permit scheme was lawful and justified.
The appellants’ primary case was that the statutory scheme which enabled the designation of a public taxi stand on private land subject to the landowner’s consent created a right of access for the benefit of licensed taxi drivers and their vehicles which continues so long as the public taxi stand remains designated as such.
Underlying the judge’s rejection of the appellants’ case was the fact that the respondent as lessee of the land at BTM had the right to restrict access on such terms as it saw fit, including the restriction of access for taxi drivers and their vehicles if the driver was not in possession of a valid permit for which it could require the drivers to pay. The statutory scheme did not operate to prevent the respondent from exercising its rights as a landowner in this way. The judge also held, as an alternative ground, that the respondent (as the person, for the purpose of the railway byelaws, entitled to determine who can access the station to solicit custom or employment) could validly impose on licensed taxi drivers the obligation to apply and pay for a permit to ply for hire at BTM.
On this appeal, for which I granted permission on the papers, Mr David Fletcher argued the case for the appellants and Mr Jonathan Small QC with Mr Ewan Paton argued the case for the respondent.
The statutory scheme and the taxi byelaws
The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (“the 1847 Act”) contains provision for the “commissioners” (in this case, in effect, Bristol City Council) to license “hackney carriages”. Unless quoting from legislation I will, for convenience, use the shorter term “taxi” in this judgment. Section 37 of the 1847 Act provides:
“The commissioners may from time to time licence to ply for hire within the prescribed distance, or if no distance is prescribed, within five miles from the General Post Office of the city, town, or place to which the special Act refers, (which in that case shall be deemed the prescribed dista