REDUCED.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 169, 18 July 1924, Page 4

REDUCED.

1 TAXI LICENSE FEES. a 1 9 SUPREME COURT DECISION. E • f KATE OPPRESSIVE AND UNEQUAL. . The amendment to the 'by-law of the ; Auckland City Council increasing taxi ■ license fees from £1 to £7 10/ and £10 1 per annum, according to weight, has been quashed by the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Stringer has fixed the l license fee at £2. The license fees were increased under a by-law passed on August 23, i 1023, and the Auckland Taxi Owners' ' Association instituted proceedings for > an order quashing the increase. At the i hearing Mr. Leary represented the taxi | » owners, and Mr. Stanton appeared for i J the City Council. • J Judgment was delivered this morn- • I ing. Mr. Justice Stringer said that the I proceedings purported to amend by-law I No. 1, which was passed in the year J 1917, and which provided that the fee ', j for a cab license for one year should ,i be £1. The amendment deleted the j words "cab license for one year, £l,"and I substituted the following provisions: "In respect of any mechanically pro- ■ pelled cab whose unladen weight exceeds one cwt., but does not exceed three cwt, for one year, £7 10/. In respect of any mechanically propelled cab whose unladen weight exceede 30 cwt, ! for one year, £10." It was contended by counsel for the taxi owners that j these amendments should be quashed on the grounds that they were unreasonable and oppressive, and that they operated by way of taxation for the use of the roads, and could not be justified as legitimate license fees. Fees Not for Revenue Purposes. After referring to the relevant sections of the Municipal Corporations* Act, his Honor went on to say that the first question to he determined was whether such license fees as were in question could properly be imposed by the council for revenue purposes, or whether they should be limited to sucn amounts as would reasonably recoup the council for the expenses incurred in connection with the registration of the licenses, the collection of the fees, and the inspection from time to time of the licensed vehicles. "In my opinion, the true construction of thp Municipal Corporations Act lends to the conclusion that it was not intended that the fees should be imposed for revenue purposes, but should be limited, ac indicated above," said Mr. Justice Stringer. The power conferred upon borough councils to make by-laws was contained in section 354 which, in 42 subsections, denned the various purposes for which such by-laws Blight be made. In subsection 34, the collocation of carriers, of persons for hire, with hawkers, keepers of stalls, porters, criers and bellringers, and boatmen, was to his Honor's mind clear indication that this was a police provision for the good rule and government of the borough, and to enable order, cleanliness and health to be maintained. Section 357 was merely auxiliary to j section 354, and was merely for the purpose of more effectually implementing the express provisions of the former section, and the " reasonable" fee mentioned was intended to be such only as could be properly executed in order to cover I the cost of licensing and regulating the ' persons affected. His Honor thought , the passage in the American work, "Words and Phrases Judicially Determined," under the title of "License," was particularly apt in this connection: "Licenses (it is said) are a part of the police regulations of the city, and should be charged for as such, and only to such an extent as may reasonably I compensate the city for issuing and ; enforcing the license, and for the care ! exercised by the city under its police j authority over the persons licensed." These observations were, his Honor thought, just as applicable to a New , Zealand, as to an American, city. That this was the true view was, he thought, , shown by other by-laws of the borough, which provided for the inspection of vehicles, and for their being certified : by the inspector as fit and proper for .' public use, etc. These were all police I provisions, ftnd indicated the purpose !' for which alone license fees might be ■ executed properly. This apparently was the view taken by the Auckland Borough I Council itself for many years prior to 1023, as was shown by the moderate fee of £1 which it imposed for a cab license, and was still the view taken by the more important borough councils 'of the Dominion, as indicated by the fees imposed by them, which were usually £1, but which ranged from that amount to £3 in one instance. His Honor was forced, therefore, to the conclusion that the amended fees under consideration had been imposed, not only for the legitimate purpose of regulation, biit, in addition, for the purpose of raising revenue by way of taxation for the use of public streets, and that the fees were unreasonable to the extent to which they went beyond what was necessary for such legitimate purpose. Special Authority Necessary. That a borough council bad no power to tax, except under a power expressly and unambiguously conferred, was beyond question, said his Honor. In the I present case, the argument applied that I there must be clear statutory authority for the imposition of a tax. Mr. Stanton, for the City Council, did not dispute that the amended fees were imposed for revenue purposes. That the license fees complained of were a mode of taxation for the use of the streets was further shown by the affidavits filed on behalf of the Council, setting out the great expenditure by the CounI cil during recent years in the improveI ment of the streets, and the consequent benefits to persons using the streets with vehicles. It might well be that the Council might reasonably be empowered by the Legislature to impose taxation for raising revenue, for the construction, improvement, and maintenance of streets from those who derive ■ special benefits in using the streets with j vehicles in the course of their business; but to levy such taxation upon one comparatively small section under the guise of license fees for cabs plying for hire was oppressive, and unequal in its operation. Having regard, therefore, to what his Honor held to be the only legitimate I purpose of license fees, the amended fees were, he thought, unreasonable, and had been fixed upon an improper basis. The 1 by-law would therefore be amended by deleting the figures "£7 10/" and "£10," ' and substituting therefore in each case 1 "£2." Costs, £10 10/, and disburse- : ments, were to be paid by the Auckland 1 City Council to the Auckland Taxi--1 Owners' Association. I Leave to appeal was given. Jv