Legal News

Hackney carriage and taxi drivers’ trade associations successfully challenge Mayor’s Streetspace Plan for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods—R (United Trade Action Group) v TFL and Mayor of London

Hackney carriage and taxi drivers’ trade associations successfully challenge Mayor’s Streetspace Plan for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods—R (United Trade Action Group) v TFL and Mayor of London
Published on: 27 January 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Hackney carriage and taxi drivers’ trade associations successfully challenge Mayor’s Streetspace Plan for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods—R (United Trade Action Group) v TFL and Mayor of London
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • What happens now?
  • Case details

Article summary

Local Government analysis: Justice Lang allowed two conjoined claims for judicial review brought by two trade bodies representing the hackney carriage industry (the United Trade Action Group (UTAG), and the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA)). One claim challenged the Mayor of London’s Streetspace Plan and the associated guidance to highway authorities published by the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL), the other a Temporary Traffic Management Order (the A10 order) prohibiting the use of motorised vehicles, including Hackney Carriages, on the A10 along Bishopsgate in the city of London. The judge ordered that the plan, the guidance and the A10 order be quashed on four separate grounds—(ignoring material considerations, breaching public sector equality duty (PSED), frustrating legitimate expectation and irrationality). The decision is of major importance to the future of highways throughout London and in the country generally, since the plan and the guidance concerned the suppression of motorised traffic and the creation of ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’. The A10 order was challenged by the claimants as an example of a scheme introduced pursuant to the plan and the guidance and in order to demonstrate the adverse and unlawful impact of such a scheme in practice. Written by David Matthias QC, leading counsel for the claimants. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents