Judge's ruling seen as prising open the door to taxi deregulation

A High Court decision yesterday that the Government has no power to restrict the issuing of new taxi licences to holders of existing licences could lead to a radical opening up of the system for allocating taxi licences.

However, the short-term effect is expected to mean no additional taxis on the streets for the Christmas period.

Hackney drivers had challenged the plan to more than double the number of existing taxi licences in Dublin by allocating the new licences to existing licence-holders and also proposals for the issuing of new licences in Dundalk.

The hackney operators opposed the proposals and claimed they had applied for taxi licences but had been refused.

In a reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Murphy upheld their challenge and noted it was "remarkable" that little evidence had been given to the "unmet" public demand for taxis.

Some lawyers involved in the case regarded yesterday's ruling as opening up the way for anybody, provided they complied with certain criteria, to apply for taxi licences, ending a system that has existed for years. The High Court decision is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court, but final orders in the High Court case will not be made until after lawyers have had time to consider the 54-page judgment. The judge will hear submissions from counsel on October 31st, when he will also deal with costs.

Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Murphy held the Minister for the Environment does not have the power to restrict the number of licences. In restricting the numbers for reasons unrelated to the qualitative standards of the vehicles and of drivers, the Minister had "fettered the exercise of the discretion" conferred upon him by section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961.

"A quantitative restriction not alone affects the rights of citizens to work in an industry for which they may be qualified but it also manifestly affects the right of the public to the services of taxis and, indeed, restricts the development of the taxi industry itself."

The judge said regulations that restrict the number of public hire vehicles "contradict the very concept of public service". It was, of course, open to the relevant authority to insist on quality as the base or threshold requirement in relation to a vehicle licence as well as a driver's licence.

"The 1961 Act does not contemplate the restriction of numbers in order to enforce standards. Moreover, there would appear not to be any criteria in the Act, nor in the regulations, by which a determination should be made on the number of new licences to be granted.

"Indeed, no indication has been given to the local authorities to whom the Minister purports to delegate the function of the factors to be considered in limiting the number of vehicles."

The policies and principles in Section 82 of the 1961 Act provided no basis on which the Minister could require local authorities to impose a quantitative restriction on the issuance of new taxi licences within their areas. "In arriving at such a conclusion, the court is not attempting to interfere with the Minister's right to make regulations for the control and operation of taxis," the judge said.

"That right does not appear to extend to the limitation of number or to discriminate in favour of existing taxi licence-holders."

The judge said it was remarkable that little evidence had been given as to the rights of the public and to the level of "unmet demand" for taxis. "The concept of public services in exchange for quasi monopolistic privileges received scant attention."

The proceedings were taken by Mr Christopher Humphrey, St Teresa's Gardens, Donore Avenue, Dublin; Mr Tony Doyle, St Laurence's Park, Stillorgan, Dublin; Mr Kevin Brady, Ashbrook Avenue, Dundalk; and Mr Thomas O'Connor, Greenwood Drive, Red Barrons Road, Dundalk. The action was against the Minister for the Environment and Local Government; the Minister of State at that Department; the State, Dublin Corporation; Dundalk Urban Council; and, by order of the court, the National Taxi Drivers' Union.

In relation to the Dundalk licences, Mr Justice Murphy said it was conceded by counsel for Dundalk UDC that resolutions passed on January 11th last were ambiguous, in so far as they purported to be a final decision and yet maintained they were preliminary to advertising and consultation. The UDC accepted the required statutory notice of one month for public consultation was not met because of a shortfall in the appropriate notice of four days.

The intention was to remedy that by advertising afresh and holding a further ratification meeting in relation to taxi numbers and in relation to the area of taxi-meter licensing.

It seemed the resolution of January 11th was invalid, the judge said. Applications for licences which were invited and received could not be deemed closed.