September 13, 2017

In Kaivanpor v. DPP [2015] EWHC 4127, the Divisional Court sought to resolve what was seen as a tension between the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Muck It Ltd v. Merritt [2005] EWCA Civ 1124 and Canterbury City Council v. Ali [2013] EHWC 2360 (Admin) as to who bore the burden of proof in establishing whether an already licensed individual (in Kaivanpor a taxi driver) is a fit and proper person when considering an appeal against a revocation.

In a supreme irony, one of the reasons given by the Divisional Court for preferring the approach in Muck It over that in Ali was that Ali was “ a decision reached with only one party present and represented which was based on an absence of relevant Court of Appeal authority”. This was an irony because in Kaivanpor only one party (Mr Kaivanpor) appeared a...

June 21, 2016

Transport for London (“TfL”) has made a suite of regulations amending the existing rules applying to the private hire vehicles, drivers and operators it licenses.

In this blog post, I take a look at the new insurance requirements for private hire vehicles (“PHVs”).

I will firstly set out what I consider to be the relevant provisions of the law of the land as it relates to the insurance of motor vehicles generally.

I will then see how that general law has been built upon to date so far as PHVs in London are concerned.

Then I will set out the new reforms to the regulations, and consider how this may impact upon the owners and drivers of PHVs in London, and their insurers.

The Road Traffic Act 1988

So, some context. S.143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“RTA 1988”) makes it an offence to use (or to cause or...

Please reload

Charles Holland - 
Barrister

Licensing, chancery/commercial and property barrister.

Search By Tags
Please reload

© 2016-2019 Charles Holland

  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Twitter Black Round