The State's proposal for an unlimited number of taxi licences in Dublin would have "massive repercussions" for existing drivers, the National Taxi Drivers Union has argued before the High Court.
Under the deregulation proposals, not only were the taxi operators not guaranteed a living but their licences would lose value, said Mr John Rogers SC, for the NTDU and its general secretary, Mr Thomas Gorman, and vice-president, Mr Vincent Kearns.
He was continuing submissions on the second day of the hearing before Mr Justice Kelly for leave to challenge the deregulation plan introduced two weeks ago by the Minister for State for the Environment, Mr Bobby Molloy. The hearing continues today. If leave is granted, there will be a full hearing of the case at a later date.
The NTDU and its leaders, in their main case, want leave to seek a declaration that the November regulations - made under Statutory Instrument 367 - were made outside the powers of the Minister. They argue the State has no power to regulate the licensing of public service vehicles prior to the Supreme Court determining an appeal against a recent High Court decision in favour of hackney operators.
The NTDU claims in its application before Mr Justice Kelly that if the October decision is eventually set aside by the Supreme Court and SI 3 is found to be valid, the taxi-drivers would be left without licences because of the later SI 367 regulations.
Mr Rogers contended that his clients had a good case that taxi owners had a property right in the licences. On the assumption that was the position and that, under SI 367, there would be deregulation and an abundance of licences, existing licences would lose their value to nil or a very significant loss.
Under the Constitution, it was the duty of the State to protect and vindicate a taxi man or woman from unjust attack. SI 367 was an unreasonable attack on the constitutional right to property.
Replying, Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for the State, said the Supreme Court was free to determine the appeal according to its discretion.
He said if there was a property right vested in a taxi licence - and the State was not saying there was not - this was a variable right. Licences were subject to changes in the law and their value might increase or decrease. There was no obligation on the Minister to create or maintain the market in taxi licences.