Kelly, R (on the application of) v Liverpool Crown Court & Anor
2006
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE WALLER
- LORD JUSTICE DYSON
- LORD JUSTICE NEUBERGER
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
2006
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr Kelly, a Wirral taxi operator, sought additional Hackney Carriage licences from the Wirral Borough Council through applications made in 1991, 1993, and 2002. After a complex procedural history in which the 1991 application was remitted for reconsideration, WBC later deregulated licence numbers and adopted a three‑year vehicle age policy. In July 2003 the Crown Court dismissed Kelly’s appeals by treating the 2002 policy as dispositive. Newman J refused judicial review in May 2004, relying largely on delay. On appeal, Waller LJ (with Dyson LJ and Neuberger LJ concurring) held that only post‑decision delay was relevant, that the 1991 application remained extant, and that the Crown Court erred by applying the 2002 policy rigidly. Applying fairness and the CPR overriding objective, the Court substituted relief and ordered five licences to be issued to Kelly for vehicles in his 1991 application, subject to conditions.
Judgment
Lord Justice Waller :
This is an appeal from the judgment of Newman J dated 25 th May 2004 by which he refused the application for judicial review of the appellant (Mr Kelly). Mr Kelly was seeking review of the decision of His Honour Judge Macmillan sitting with magistrates of 11 th July 2003. By that decision the Crown Court sitting in appeal from the Wirral Borough Council (the WBC) dismissed Mr Kelly’s appeal against the withholding of certain licences to run certain “Hackney Carriages” more commonly called taxis. The crown court was considering three applications of Mr Kelly; first an application made on 10 th June 1991 for 10 licences; second an application made on 9 th June 1993 for a further 10 licences; and third an application made on 17 th May 2002 for 4 licences.
The dates of the first two applications only need to be stated to raise questions as to how the same were being considered by the Crown Court in July 2003. An accurate answer would involve a detailed consideration of litigation over that period and a detailed consideration of a running battle between Mr Kelly and the WBC. It is unnecessary however to do more than give a bare outline of the history in the light of the fact that on 5 th December 2001 the then Recorder of Liverpool now David Clarke J gave an extension of time to Mr Kelly to appeal at least the first two applications, and there is no challenge to his exercise of that discretion. Furthermore Mr Kelly convinced Davis J to grant permission to move for judicial review on 24 th February 2004, and Mr Colbey persuaded Carnwath LJ to grant permission to appeal to this court from the decision of Newman J on 4 th May 2005 indicating at least that Mr Kelly had a point which needed consideration in relation to the first two applications, and that delay alone should not defeat Mr Kelly. It is right to say that Mr Edis QC for WBC submitted that delay alone should defeat Mr Kelly and indeed that Newman J decided that it should and this court should not interfere with that aspect of his ruling. But I will come to that.
The relevant history is as follows:
Mr Kelly made his application for 10 licences on 24 th June 1991. Licences in this context apply to vehicles themselves: he was thus seeking “plates” for ten specified vehicles. His case is that the application was made so as to increase the business he already had which involved running some 22 taxis for which he already had “plates”, and his case is further that he had to p