Transport for London (TfL) v Griffin & Ors [2012] EWHC 1105 (QB) (26 April 2012)

Transport for London (TfL) v Griffin & Ors [2012] EWHC 1105 (QB) (26 April 2012)

The defendants' conduct in encouraging or assisting PHV drivers to use bus lanes reserved for taxis, and offering an indemnity against fines for such conduct, was likely to result in breaches of the criminal law. The indemnity was void as contrary to public policy. Interim injunctive relief restraining such conduct was necessary, proportionate, and just and convenient, notwithstanding the pending judicial review and the defendants' Article 10 ECHR rights, given the presumption of validity of the legislation and the public interest in enforcing the law.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1105 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Transport for London; Defendant: John Griffin; Defendant: Addison Lee PLC; Defendant: Eventech Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (interim Relief Pending Judicial Review)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted; interim declaration granted; undertakings accepted in lieu of part of the relief sought.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Public Law Remedies, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Traffic Regulation Orders, Discrimination, Judicial Review, Public Policy, Enforcement of Criminal Law
Administrative Law Criminal Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Interim Injunctions Public Law Remedies Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) Traffic Regulation Orders +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transport for London

Claimant

John Griffin

Defendant

Addison Lee PLC

Defendant

Eventech Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (interim Relief Pending Judicial Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' conduct in instructing or encouraging private hire vehicle drivers to use bus lanes contravenes the law and warrants interim injunctive relief
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity offered to drivers against fines for bus lane contraventions is void and unenforceable
  3. 3 Whether the grant of interim relief would unlawfully interfere with the defendants' freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' conduct in encouraging or assisting PHV drivers to use bus lanes reserved for taxis, and offering an indemnity against fines for such conduct, was likely to result in breaches of the criminal law. The indemnity was void as contrary to public policy. Interim injunctive relief restraining such conduct was necessary, proportionate, and just and convenient, notwithstanding the pending judicial review and the defendants' Article 10 ECHR rights, given the presumption of validity of the legislation and the public interest in enforcing the law.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted; interim declaration granted; undertakings accepted in lieu of part of the relief sought.

Orders

  • Defendants restrained until determination of the judicial review or further order from causing, encouraging or assisting any private hire vehicle driver to use bus lanes marked for use by taxis during restricted hours, save to pick up or set down passengers.
  • Defendants restrained from communicating to any person that they will discharge or reimburse fines or liabilities incurred for contravention of bus lane legislation on or after 25 April 2012, whether pursuant to the indemnity or otherwise (undertaking accepted).