Key Facts
- •Appeal against a High Court declaration that private hire operators must contract as principal with passengers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
- •The appellants, Veezu and D.E.L.T.A., operate differently: Veezu provides transportation services for some clients and acts as a disclosed intermediary for others; D.E.L.T.A. acts as a booking handling service.
- •The case centers on the interpretation of "operate" in the 1976 Act and the effect of a deeming provision in section 56(1).
- •The High Court judge declared that a licensed operator accepting a booking must enter a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey.
- •The appeal considers whether this is a necessary implication of the 1976 Act, focusing on passenger safety and the regulatory scheme.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of "operate" under section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. It focuses on arranging bookings, not providing the vehicle itself.
Milton Keynes Council v Skyline Taxis and Private Hire Ltd [2017] EWHC 2794 (Admin)
Interpretation of deeming provisions. A deeming provision doesn't necessarily create fiction; it can clarify existing situations or impose an artificial construction.
St Aubyn v Attorney-General [1952] AC 15
Principles for interpreting deeming clauses: consider the statute's purpose, the persons involved, and avoid unjust or absurd results unless compelled by clear language.
Fowler v HMRC [2020] UKSC 22
Necessary implication requires a compellingly clear implication from the language, nature of the offence, mischief prevented, and parliamentary intention.
B (A Child) v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428 and Pwr v DPP [2022] UKSC 2
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; the High Court declaration discharged.
The court found that the 1976 Act does not explicitly require operators to contract with passengers. The deeming provision in section 56(1) deals with the contract of hire, not the initial booking. The High Court's declaration was overly broad and inappropriate.