The High Court has refused an application to overturn a decision not to grant a taxi driver a new small public service vehicle (PSV) licence, holding that the available District Court appeal was the more appropriate remedy.
In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2013, Kearns P. dismissed the judicial review brought by Joseph Fatus against Chief Superintendent Patrick V. Murphy and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. The court did not decide whether Fatus should receive a licence. It said the High Court’s role was not to make that assessment and that, even if there had been a procedural failing, it would decline relief on discretionary grounds because the statutory appeal could determine the matter afresh.
The challenge concerned the first respondent’s 19 November 2012 refusal to grant Fatus a new PSV licence. The court noted that the regulations provided for five-year licences, not renewals. A six-month licence issued in May 2012 while District Court charges were pending was outside the regulations, the judgment said, but its validity was not challenged in these proceedings and it had expired.
The refusal followed a complaint about an incident at Waterford train station on 4 November 2012. The first respondent found, on the balance of probabilities, that Fatus had obstructed a female motorist, refused to move his vehicle, behaved aggressively and failed to provide his PSV badge number when asked. Fatus had an opportunity to respond to the concerns at a meeting, though he was not shown the complainant’s written statement or a Garda report. The court held that a trial-style hearing and cross-examination were not required in this licence application process.
The court also considered an earlier March 2012 incident at a Waterford taxi rank, where a Garda issued Fatus a fixed-charge notice for holding a mobile phone while driving. It held that the licensing decision-maker could consider that incident alongside the November complaint. However, the court said the decision-maker had confirmed he did not rely on an August 2011 driving incident; the District Court had dismissed the related dangerous-driving charges on their merits in July 2012.
Fatus argued that the refusal was disproportionate and that fair procedures had not been followed. The court rejected those grounds, finding the decision was not irrational or disproportionate in a way requiring High Court intervention, and that Fatus had a full opportunity to make representations on the remaining concerns.
Fatus had lodged a District Court appeal against the refusal before seeking judicial review, then put that appeal on hold. Under the regulations, the District Court could confirm the refusal or direct that a licence be granted. The High Court said that appeal offered a complete hearing and could provide the positive outcome Fatus sought; judicial review, if successful, would be limited to quashing the decision and sending it back for reconsideration. The court therefore declined to grant the relief sought.