O'Dwyer v Minister for the Environment

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date27 March 1998
Date27 March 1998
Docket Number[1995 No. 8112P]

High Court

[1995 No. 8112P]
O'Dwyer v. Minister for the Environment
Michael O'Dwyer, Anthony O'Sullivan and Andrew Quelly
Plaintiffs
and
The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and The Attorney General
Defendants

Cases mentioned in this report:-

Hempenstall v. Minister for the Environment [1994] 2 I.R. 20; [1993] I.L.R.M. 318.

Minolta Ltd. v. Minister for the Environment (Unreported, Supreme Court, 4th June, 1997).

Statute - Interpretation - Delegated legislation - Public service vehicles - Statutory scheme - Taxi defined by use - Hackney defined by uses other than those relating to taxis - Use of taxi included carriage of persons initiated by means of telephonic or radio communication - Restriction on hackney owners from using telephonic or radio communication to communicate with its drivers - Policy decision of the Minister - Whether ultra vires - Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations, 1983 (No. 273), reg. 2 - Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations, 1995 (No. 136), reg. 18(1).

Plenary summons.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Geoghegan J., infra.

The plaintiffs instituted proceedings by way of plenary summons dated the 17th October, 1995, seeking a number of declaratory reliefs together with damages for breach of their constitutional rights.

The case was heard in the High Court (Geoghegan J.) on the 3rd and 4th March, 1998.

The statutory scheme in relation to public services vehicles, as laid down in the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, 1963, as amended, is to define a taxi by reference to certain types of uses and to define a hackney by references to types of uses other than the categories of uses of a taxi.

Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations of 1963, as amended by reg. 2 of the Road Traffic (Public Services Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations, 1983, includes as a use of a taxi:-

"In pursuance of a contract of hiring for the carriage of persons for reward, other than in connection with the funeral of a deceased person, 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."

Regulation 18(1) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations, 1995 provides inter alia:-

"(a) person to whom a vehicle, in respect of which a taxi licence or a wheelchair accessible taxi licence has been granted, is being sold or otherwise transferred may apply to the licensing authority which granted the licence to have the said licence continue in force."

The plaintiffs were owners of hackney licences. They sought declaratory relief that reg. 2 of the Regulations of 1983 and reg. 18(1) of the Regulations of 1995 were unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or ultra vires and/or unconstitutional. Regulation 2 of the Regulations of 1983 had the effect of preventing hackney owners from using a telephone or a radio communication to contact a hackney driver.

The plaintiffs claimed that reg. 18(1) of the Regulations of 1995, prevented them from selling or disposing of their hackney licences while taxi licence holders could dispose of their licences.

Held by the High Court (Geoghegan J.), in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim, 1, that reg. 2 of the Regulations of 1983 was made pursuant to a policy decision by the defendant, namely that being able to telephone or radio a driver was so close to the essential nature of the taxi business that the right should be made a defining characteristic of a taxi service. As that policy was not unreasonable or unconstitutional, the court could not interfere with it and therefore reg. 2 of the Regulations of 1983 was valid.

Minolta Ltd. v. Minister for the Environment (Unreported, Supreme Court, 4th June, 1997) followed.

2. That underlying reg. 18(1) of the Regulations of 1995 was the fact that a local authority could limit the number of taxi licences which it issued. Regulation 18(1) addressed this situation by allowing an issued licence to remain in force when it was transferred. Regulation 18(1) was intra vires the defendant as it dealt with the limitation of the numbers of taxi licenses, a situation which did not pertain as regards hackney licences.

3. That on the death of the holder of a hackney licence, the licence did not expire as it devolved onto the personal representative of such a holder pursuant to reg. 10 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Licensing) Regulations, 1978.

4. That the fact that hackney licences were regulated in a different manner to taxi licences with the result that there were dissimilar side effects in the market for the two different licenses did not in any way render the regulatory scheme...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Humphrey v Minister for the Environment
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 13 October 2000
    ...Chertsey Urban District Council [1964] 1 Q.B. 214; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 38; [1963] 2 All E.R. 787. O'Dwyer v. Minister for the Environment [2001] 1 I.R. 255. O'Flynn v. Adjudication Officer (Case C - 237/94) [1996] E.C.R. I-2617. O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39; [1992] I.L.R.M. 237......
  • Muldoon v The Minister for the Environment and Local Government
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 16 March 2023
    ...25 Regulation 18(1) of the 1995 Regulations was considered by the High Court (Geoghegan J) in O' Dwyer v Minister for the Environment [2001] 1 IR 255. The plaintiffs, who were holders of hackney licences, challenged ( inter alia) Regulation 18(1) on the basis that it unlawfully discriminate......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT