The High Court has ordered each side to bear its own legal costs in a judicial review dispute that became moot after a taxi driver’s licence was granted. The proceedings were struck out, with no further order.
In a judgment delivered on 16 January 2023, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the applicant had achieved his objective when the licensing authority granted the small public service vehicle driver’s licence on 5 January 2021. But the court found it was unreasonable for him to begin judicial review proceedings without first making representations against a proposed refusal.
The applicant had previously held a licence, which expired in line with his immigration permission. He sought renewal in February 2020, but the application was refused in August. After his immigration permission was renewed, he asked the licensing authority to review the refusal. In September, the authority said it had decided to renew the licence, but in October it told him further enquiries had raised other matters requiring a determination.
The authority then issued a statutory notice proposing refusal on suitability grounds, citing summonses for alleged careless driving and three alleged speeding offences. It invited representations within 14 days and said it would decide within seven days after that period. A second notice in the same terms was sent by registered post on 4 December 2020.
The applicant made no representations. Instead, he sought leave to apply for judicial review, which the High Court granted on 14 December. One ground was that relying on pending prosecutions would be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. The authority granted the licence on 5 January 2021, and the proceedings became moot.
The judge said the limited evidence indicated that the authority’s change of position was a direct response to the proceedings. An authorised officer had explained by affidavit that the pending prosecutions were not relied upon because no convictions had been entered. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying judicial review claim.
However, the judge said the applicant should have raised his objection through the statutory representations process first. The authority had committed to deciding the matter within seven days after the response period, so using that process would not have caused material delay. The applicant could have obtained the licence without the expense of court proceedings if the authority accepted his objection.
The court therefore made no order for costs, including the costs of a one-hour hearing on 11 January 2023. Each party must bear its own costs.