Taxi drivers challenging state liberalisation of market

Taxi drivers are challenging the liberalisation of the market 13 years ago, in a test case for damages that affects 1,200 drivers.

The High Court was told taxi drivers suffered a financial catastrophe overnight as a result of the unlawful and unfair liberalisation of the licensing regime and are entitled to damages.

Drivers who bought licences for as high as €100,000 had their constitutional rights to property, equal treatment and to earn a livelihood breached when the value of those licences was wiped out overnight in Nov 2000, counsel Michael Collins said in a key test-case.

Some drivers bought licences as late as Aug 2000 but, months later, licences could be acquired by any appropriately qualified person for about €5,000.

While there was some talk of liberalisation before Nov 2000, various reports and consultants who addressed the issue recommended it should be implemented on a phased basis and drivers couldn’t have expected it would happen overnight, he said.

Mr Collins was opening actions by three taxi drivers — Alphonsus Muldoon, Vincent Malone and Thomas Kelly — which are regarded as test cases for actions by 1,200 other drivers arising from liberalisation of the taxi licensing regime in 2000.

The case of Mr Muldoon, the first being opened, is against the minister for environment and local government, the State, and Dublin City Council.

Mr Muldoon, aged 66, from Dublin, bought a licence from another driver for £80,000 in 1998, plus a £3,000 licence fee. He claims the 2000 regulations deprived him of an anticipated substantial asset he intended to use for pension purposes.

He paid for the licence with his £40,000 life savings and by remortgaging his home for the other £40,000. While he was later paid €13,000 compensation under the Taxi Hardship Scheme which had a maximum payment of £15,000, that did not compensate him for the loss suffered, he claims.

As a result of the new licensing regime of 2000, he was unable to meet mortgage repayments over certain periods, his earning capacity and health were affected, and he has been unable to provide for a pension with the effect he faces having to work indefinitely, Mr Muldoon also claims.

Mr Muldoon claims, when he sought to enter the industry in 1994, he was advised he would have to buy a licence from an existing licence holder.

The actions, being heard by Mr Justice Micheal Peart, are expected to run for several weeks. The judge will decide the issue of liability first. The defendants deny any liability.