Paul Corfield wrote on Thu, 26 Apr 2012
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:50:51 +0200, Jarle H Knudsen
wrote:

Tfl has issued this statment:

"TfL's High Court injunction prevents Addison Lee from instructing its
drivers to use bus lanes

Following a ruling from the High Court today (Thursday 26 April) Addison
Lee is prevented from instructing or encouraging its drivers to drive in
bus lanes and must remove the statement on its website instructing
drivers to do so.[...]" [1]

But this is what Addison Lee says:

"TfL fails in its bid to silence Addison Lee over bus lanes

Transport for London has been forced to abandon its application for a
mandatory injunction requiring Addison Lee and its chairman John Griffin
to withdraw their letter to drivers stating that they are entitled to
drive in London bus lanes[...]" [2]

Clever use of language, or are they contradicting each other?

I think it is clever use of language. The AL release uses some very
careful wording in order to present as positive a picture of the
decision. Words like "noted by the judge" suggesting agreement
whereas I doubt the judge offered any such endorsement. The term
"mandatory injunction" also looks rather technical and is without
context as we do not know exactly what TfL did ask the Court for.

Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its
position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument
that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this
is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads
of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus
service.

The judgement can be read at
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1105.html. It's only a
sub-issue in a campaign by AL that is continuing and will be going to
judicial review.

The judge said of AL in paragraph 80:

" a. Despite protestations to the contrary (including an assertion in
Ms Demetriou QC's skeleton argument that, and I quote, "Mr Griffin has
not instructed his drivers to use the bus lanes"), it seems to me plain
that Mr Griffin and AL have, in effect, been characterising the Notice
sent to AL's PHV drivers on 14 April as an "instruction".

b. The video clip showing Mr Griffin instructing one of his drivers
to go into the bus lane and offering to pay any money the driver may be
charged is the clearest possible evidence of Mr Griffin's willingness to
risk flouting the law."

The judgement concluded:

"For all these reasons, it is my conclusion that it is both necessary
and just and convenient to grant the injunction sought by TfL in the
form sought ie until determination by the Administrative Court of the
judicial review proceedings in claim CO10424/2011 or further order, an
injunction restraining the defendants from causing, encouraging or
assisting any private hire vehicle driver to use bus lanes marked for
use by taxis during the hours when restrictions apply, save to pick up
or set down passengers subject to the cross-undertaking by TfL as set
out above. I will also grant the interim declaration as set out above,
accept the undertakings proffered by the defendants and make an order
that the judicial review proceedings be expedited."
--
Iain Archer