The claimant held a series of private hire vehicle operator’s licences granted by the licensing authority under section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Section 80 of the 1976 Act defined “operate” to mean “in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle”. By section 56(1) of the 1976 Act, every contract for the hire of a private hire vehicle licensed under Part II of the Act was deemed to be made with the operator who accepted the booking for that vehicle, whether or not they themselves provided the vehicle, and by section 56(2) every operator holding a licence under section 55 had to keep a record in such form as the licensing authority might prescribe by conditions on the licence and, before the commencement of each journey, had to enter in that record particulars of every booking, whether invited or accepted by them directly from the hirer or by undertaking it at the request of another operator. The claimant brought a CPR Pt 8 claim against the licensing authority seeking a declaration that, in order to operate lawfully under Part II of the 1976 Act, a licensed operator who accepted a booking from a passenger was required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which was the subject of the booking. It relied for that proposition on a judgment of the Divisional Court, in proceedings involving its sister company which operated in London, interpreting the differently worded provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 and establishing that the operator would be acting unlawfully if it did not enter into direct contractual relations with the passenger.
On the claim—
Held, claim allowed and declaration granted. The central arrangement under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 was between the operator and the hirer or passenger, with the former “operating” by the provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle, which encompassed compendiously both the vehicle and the services of a driver. Section 56(1) by its deeming provision made clear that the accepter of the booking and the hirer/passenger remained the primary regulatory relationship even when another provided the vehicle with the driver and that the former remained the operator under the Act. Accordingly, section 56(1) maintained, for those cases, the relationship of the first accepting operator as principal with that passenger. The position was reinforced by section 56(2) which showed that where a person was an operator in whatever capacity, whether accepter of the booking or the undertaker of it for another operator, the obligations of record-keeping by the licensed operator were imposed, it being immaterial whether or not subcontracting was permitted by the contract between the person licensed under section 55 who accepted the booking and the person who made the booking. Given that a licence under section 55 was required in order to be an operator, and given that the operation of sections 55 and 56 presupposed and/or created a contractual relationship between the accepting operator and the passenger, no matter what the model of provision of vehicle, the inescapable conclusion was that in every case an operator had to have a contractual relationship with the hirer in order to operate within the regulatory framework. Moreover, the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 constituted a meaningful comparator to the 1976 Act and, given the similarities of context and statutory intention between the two Acts, the analysis of the operator obligations under the 1998 Act were of assistance and were to be read over directly into the construction of the 1976 Act (paras 63–66, 70, 75, 87).
Ranjit Bhose KC and Josef Cannon (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP ) for the claimant.
Charles Holland (instructed by Solicitor, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council) for the licensing authority.
The first intervener, Bolt Services UK Ltd, did not appear and was not represented.
Claire McCann (instructed by ITN Solicitors) for the second intervener, the App Drivers and Couriers Union.
Simon Cheetham KC (instructed by Veezu Holdings Ltd, Newport) for the third intervener, Veezu Holdings Ltd.
Gerald Gouriet KC (instructed by Aaron & Partners LLP, Chester) for the fourth intervener, DELTA Merseyside Ltd.