O'Connor v Williams

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 15 May 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1996 WJSC-HC 4287
• Docket Number: 5359p/1995
• Court: High Court
• Date: 15 May 1996

O' CONNOR v. WILLIAMS

DENIS O'CONNOR, PATRICK AHERN, CHRISTOPHER CARROLL, PHILIPO'HALLORAN AND NOEL NEVILLE

PLAINTIFFS

-V-

JUDE WILLIAMS AND TREATY HACKNEY CABS LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

1996 WJSC-HC 4287

5359p/1995

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

COMPETITION

Method

Illegality - Taxis - Hackney cabs - Conflict - Statute - Regulations - Breach - Taxi owners sought injunction restraining illegal use of radio-telephones by drivers of hackney cabs - Relief refused - Enforcement of compliance with relevant regulations being a matter for the criminal law - (1995/5359 P - Barron J. - 15/5/96) - [2001] 1 IR 248 - [1996] 2 ILRM 382

|O'Connor v. Williams|

INJUNCTION

Remedy

Scope - Offence - Commission - Restraint - Complaint of taxi drivers - Unlawful use of radio-telephones by drivers of hackney cabs - Unlawful use proved - Failure of plaintiffs to establish that injunctive relief was the only means of enforcing compliance with relevant regulations - Such enforcement left to the criminal law - (1995/5359 P - Barron J. - 15/5/96) - [2001] 1 IR 248 - [1996] 2 ILRM 382

|O'Connor v. Williams|

LICENCE

Taxis

Hackney cabs - Competition - Statute - Regulations - Breach - Taxi owners sought injunction restraining illegal use of radio- telephones by drivers of hackney cabs - Relief refused - Enforcement of compliance with relevant regulations being a matter for the criminal law - (1995/5359 P - Barron J. - 15/5/96) - [2001] 1 IR 248 - [1996] 2 ILRM 382

|O'Connor v. Williams|

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC (PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES) REGS 1963 SI 191/1963

ROAD TRAFFIC (PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES) (AMDT) REGS 1983 SI 273/1983 ART 3(2)(f)

LOVETT V GOGAN 1995 1 ILRM 12

PARSONS V KAVANAGH 1990 ILRM 560

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND V CARROLL 1996 2 ILRM 95

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered the 15th day of May 1996.

2 The Plaintiffs are Taxi drivers licensed to operate in the taximeter area of Limerick. The First Named Defendant is the Managing Director of the Second Named Defendant which operates a Hackney Car Service in the City of Limerick. The proceedings seek to restrain the Defendants from operating their business in a manner which is permitted only to Taxi drivers. While these proceedings relate only to the City of Limerick, the evidence shows that similar disputes exist in other urban areas in the State. The case as presented related to the use of two-way radios by the Defendants and their drivers.

3 By virtue of the provisions of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, 1963 and the Amendment Regulations of 1983, only a taxi may use such radios in a public place to obtain fares. This follows from the provisions of Article 3(2)(f) of the Amendment Regulations which provides as follows:

4 2 "(2) In these Regulations a reference to the use of a vehicle as a public hire vehicle shall be construed as a reference to the use of a small public service vehicle -

5 (f) in pursuance of a contract of hiring for the carriage of persons for reward, initiated or facilitated by means of a telephonic or radio communication with the vehicle while such vehicle is in a public place in a taximeter area."

6 The manner in which the second named Defendant carries on its business is largely common case. The second named Defendant has premises on the corner of Shannon Street and Henry Street in the City of Limerick with its entrance in Shannon Street. There are some fifty Hackney cabs whose drivers hire radio equipment from the Company. Since February 1995, each has signed a document headed "Rules of company for all drivers". The rules so far as they are material are asfollows:

"3.N.B.	No picking up fares on the street, eg. flag downs, (this is also,illegal).
6.N.B.	Radios must not be used on public roads to receive calls (this too, is also illegal).
8	No parking outside or near base."

7 Passengers are obtained either at the premises or elsewhere. When passengers arrive at the premises seeking a cab they are directed to one which is waiting outside either in Shannon Street or around the corner in Henry Street. Other passengers telephone from wherever they may want a cab and drivers are informed of such enquiry by radio and drive to the place where the passenger is waiting. In all cases, the contract of hire is made by the passenger with the driver to whom the fare is paid.

8 Evidence has been given by a number of witnesses called on behalf of the Plaintiffs whose evidence I accept of journeys made by them in cabs in radio communication with the second named Defendant. The tenor of this evidence is that, in the course of their journey, the drivers received instructions as to their next fares. The evidence on behalf of the Defendant was that since February 1995, the Base Controller would call only for drivers who were in a private place, though it was accepted by the first named Defendant that this was not always possible during busy periods. I regret that I find it unlikely that this was done by the Controllers. If it was so said, it was said as an empty formula and no more. There was evidence which I accept from a Controller employed by the second named Defendant up to November 1993 which indicated a method of operation as being that which I have indicated. I see nothing in...