Web1 McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All ER 889. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Page 8 of 71 Elmbridge Borough Council Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Policy 2024. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Page of 71 Elmbridge Borough Council Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Policy 2024 2. of 71 Webfound in the cases McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] EWHC Admin 695 (1st July, 1998) and more recently Leeds City Council v Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin). 1.4. Of particular authority is the judgement in the case. At McCool paragraph 15 of the judgement, Lord Bingham states:

Principles involved in

WebThe Council considers that the following types of offences are relevant when considering the suitability of a person to hold or retain a licence; Dishonesty Violence (including … Web20 jul. 2024 · In the case of McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council 1998, Lord Bingham said this: “One must it seems to me approach this case bearing in mind the objectives of this licensing regime which is plainly intended among other things to ensure so far as possible that those licensed to drive private hire vehicles are suitable persons to do ... samsonyte the muse

CONVICTIONS AND CONDUCT GUIDANCE ON RELEVANCE OF

WebJanuary 2024 and met twice to review the Rushcliffe Borough Council Members’ Allowance Scheme. The report of the Panel is appended at Appendix One. 2. Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Council a) considers the Panel’s report and determines whether to implement all, or some, of the Panel’s recommendations WebIt got an outing in the 1980’s, when Pill J delivered judgment in Westminster City Council v Zestfair4 which concerned night cafes, holding hearsay evidence to be admissible. It … WebOn behalf of the respondent, Mr Mwanakatwe has argued to the effect that the argument concerning the right to be heard ought not to be entertained, having regard to the … samsoric gmbh