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...

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