Refusal To Grant Taxi Licences Criticised

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31081, 9 June 1966, Page 8

Refusal To Grant Taxi Licences Criticised

Mr J. S. Haywood, the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority, had not exercised his discretion in a judicial manner in refusing taxi licences to two applicants, said Mr R. A. Young in submissions before the Transport Appeal Authority (Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M.) yesterday.

The Authority began hearing 17 appeals against the granting of licences to some of the 33 applicants who succeeded out of a total of 150 on October 11 last year.

Allan Joseph Black and Clifton Laurie Preston, taxi-driv-ers, appealed against the gran ing of continuous taxi-cab service licences to 24 persons. Mr R. A. Young appearing for both appellants, said the Authority had granted 33 new licences to persons other than the two appellants at that time.

He submitted that, provided his clients’ character, reputation and other qualifications were satisfactory, preference should have been given to them by reason of their long service as full-time taxi-cab drivers. “Erred Badly”

Mr Young said that the Authority had erred badly and seemed to have disregarded all the law on the matter and all the legal principles. He said that his client Black had been a full-time taxi driver for eight years and five months, and for three years of that time he had worked the 5 p.m. to 5 a.m. shift, six days a week. His client Preston had been a full-time driver for nine years, working a 4 p.m. to 4 a.m. night shift for the last five years. This was evidence in itself of the satisfaction they had given to their ownerdriver employers. Of the 24 respondents who were granted licences,'ll had never been taxi-drivers and six had previously held taxi licences and had sold them to make a capital gain. Twelve had been casual drivers only, and others had not driven for some years.

Preference “Full-time employee taxi-dri-vers should have preference over casual non-taxi drivers and those who have sold their licences for capital gain and those who have been employees but have abandoned the industry in favour of

other work over a long period,” said Mr Young. He said the Authority was wrong in his decisions and had failed to excise his discretion in a judicial manner in preferring the respondents to the appellants. Mr Young said drivers were required to take a compulsory rest period, and if there were any respondents who were bus or truck drivers who had worked as casual taxi-drivers on their days of rest, evidence of such casual driving should not have been accepted in support of their applications.

His clients, said Mr Young, had in a sense served an apprenticeship as taxi-drivers by working for owner-drivers. They had learned the trade the hard way.

“If such experienced and Tollable drivers, who qualify for taxi licences, are to be superseded by strangers such as traffic officers, storekeepers, golf-club makers and apartment house proprietors, there will be no incentive to suitable men to learn the trade, work long night hours and generally give efficient service.” Gamble Taken Referring to the fact that many of the successful applicants had bought cars and were running them, Mr Young said they knew of the pending appeals before they bought their cars. They had taken a gamble and knew the risk they were taking. They had also had the benefit of up to eight months’ earning capacity through the best taxi months of the year.

Counsel appearing for the 24 respondents submitted that the appeal Authority could not upset the licensing Authority’s decisions and substitute its own opinion unless it could be shown that the licensing Authority was clearly wrong In his decisions. He said that, although experience in the taxi industry should be taken into account, it was not the only factor and did not give an applicant the right to succeed. The licensing Authority had given no reasons for his decisions and there could only

be conjecture about the factors which had weighed with him in selecting the applicants who were to get licences. He had had the advantage of seeing the applicants and hearing their evidence.

The appeal Authority reserved his decision. Had Experience Mr M. F. Hobbs prosecuted appeals against 24 successful applicants on behalf of C. M. Fossey, S. J. Hall and R. M. Moffat. He said all three had had experience as full-time taxi-drivers, and quoted an earlier appeal decision which said that preference should be given to those who had given long service to the industry. The length of time spent in the industry was of very considerable importance, said Mr Hobbs. The greater the disparity in time spent in the industry, the greater the importance that should be attached to that factor.

Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the licensing authority could have taken the view that the financial abilities of the three appellants were not as good as those who were finally granted licences. They said it was by no means clear that the Authority had regarded all applicants as equal in other respects, apart from the length of time spent in the industry. The hearing was adjourned until today.