The Court of Appeal has dismissed competition law appeals brought by Alphonsus Muldoon and Mary Kelly over the former taxi licensing regime, affirming the High Court’s dismissal of their claims against Dublin City Council, Clare County Council and the State.
In a judgment delivered on 16 March 2023, Mr Justice Maurice Collins said the councils were not “undertakings” subject to competition rules when carrying out the taxi licensing functions conferred on them by regulations under the Road Traffic Act 1961. Justices Costello and Haughton agreed. The court also dismissed the other appeals, including Vincent Malone’s, for the reasons in a separate judgment by Justice Costello.
Muldoon and Kelly argued that the councils supplied valuable, transferable taxi licences into a market and restricted the number issued, creating a secondary market in which licences changed hands for high prices. They said the councils held dominant positions and abused them, causing loss when the taxi market was deregulated in 2000. They also claimed the State breached EU rules by maintaining regulations that enabled the alleged conduct.
The judgment records that Muldoon paid IR£80,000 for his licence in 1998 and Kelly paid IR£107,000 in 1999. Each also paid a £3,000 fee to the relevant local authority for continuation of the licence following a change of ownership. These were the appellants’ claimed losses and payment circumstances; the Court of Appeal did not determine whether the councils had abused a dominant position.
Justice Collins held that licensing was an exercise of official authority and public power, intended to serve the public interest. The transferability of licences came from ministerial regulations, he said, and the secondary market was an incidental consequence of the regulatory regime. The councils did not participate in that market or in providing taxi services. Charging fees, or the possibility that fee income exceeded regulatory costs, did not change the character of their function.
Because the councils were not undertakings in carrying out those licensing functions, the competition rules did not apply to them. That conclusion also disposed of the associated claim against the State under Article 106 TFEU. The court therefore did not decide whether the licensing arrangements affected trade between EU member states, whether the councils would otherwise have been dominant, or whether their conduct would have amounted to an abuse. It affirmed the High Court order dismissing the competition claims.