Court rules against Queensland taxis on two grounds of compo claim

Standard taxi licenses in Brisbane were selling for an average of more than half a million dollars in 2014 but that price had dropped to $103,828 in 2018.

In 2019, the average sale price for a standard license in the city was about $75,000.

I am on the side of taxi licence holders  this isnt right at all..

it most certainly isnt a level playing field...

ya pays ya money , you take your chances. Just like any other business.
Quote:

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/queensland/court-rules-against-queensland-ta...

The amount of money a taxi owner has to shell out just to have a license is ridiculous. The other services have no such outlay.

Spot

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 12:06pm:


"Leave was granted for the group to re-plead a claim for relief under the Australian Consumer Law within 28 days."

Bobby. wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 12:54pm:


What is about 1300 people you don't reckon was a 'class?'

Further, on an Australia wide basis, we have action in the Courts against Uber directly.

(This one was against the Qld Govt, and the Fat Lady has not yet sung.)

So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses?

Imagine this.

Someone comes up with a highly AI software that knows every single legal requirement in the world.

This software, is infallible,  never gets its wrong because it works on pure logic.

It even has been programmed to consider extenuating circumstances.

Now, this program could easily replace the corrupt magistrates and judges we currently have.
In fact it's faster, more honest, incorruptible and above all, not being paid ridiculious sums of money to pontificate and doesn't live the sound of it's own voice.

So, we decide to do away with corrupt judges, magistrates and give the world honest legal systems.

I wonder, how much woukd the judges, magistrates and legal profiteers protest about their lost income?

And if we went one step further and introduced the same into politics.

WE COULD SAVE THE WORLD

Aussie wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 2:24pm:


They agreed to take your money off you Aussie. Nice of them to give you all the credit.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 8:57am:


You want to translate that to cane toad speak, Effendi?

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 11:17am:


They agreed that the customer is always right.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 11:24am:


That is not the way it works in Law.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 11:27am:


It has SFA to do with 'natural justice.'

Sounds like a bunch of lawyers getting their clients to throw away good money after bad while handsomely lining their own pockets.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:03pm:


Like they did with your money?

If they can make it sound plausible, they will do it. Even better if they have a customer who wants to take credit for it.

Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:37pm:


Get fukked then.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:40pm:


Is that lawyer or taxi vernacular?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:01pm:


Yes, they do not work for nothing, Effendi, and they do not put their careers on the line by chasing rabbits down holes.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:27pm:


You are simplifying a complex issue Effendi, and I see no benefit in taking this any further with you.

Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:48pm:


easy fixed ... just take your boy friends ball sack out of your mouth while waiting

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 5:59pm:


Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was.

At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:08pm:


only time anyone mentions gays is when you're present. Be that here or at monks forum. What does that tell you?

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:


You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:23pm:


the same applies to everyone suing someone else fd ... is there a point you're trying to make?

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:


You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:43pm:




it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk..

its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by...

if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you..

not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair..

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:45pm:


If taxis were good value there is no way companies like Uber would have been a threat.

Times change and so do the rules many people have lost money in the past by not adapting to newer times with different rules.

If I was stupid enough to invest in taxi plate I would have sold it when Uber started when the plate still had some value.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:




well we can all think like that  others would be hoping UBER would flop and disappear all together..

all I say is...   it should be a level playing field.....you cant stop competition  ... but UBER is getting away with murder.. in fact its a bloody joke....one rule for them and one rule for cabbies.......nah it stinks. 

Gordon wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 7:00pm:



not all ... come on gordy  if you had a bad experience  you can report it....in my experience never had a dirty ride...... maybe look at the driver....oopps  then again maybe not... Gordon wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 7:02pm:




for NOW....still not a level playing field though is it???

and isnt UBER foreign owned.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:53pm:


Apparently the explanation is 50 pages long of OMG why did you lawyers bother with this nonsense. Oh, hi Aussie.

John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers?

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:42pm:


no, he did not. When you learn to read English you might understand why

I am not 'bragging' about anytging.  If anything, I am openly admitting I was found to be wrong in Law.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:


No, I did not.  I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.'

cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:14am:


Yes.

Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:15am:




mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed...

are you readin that Ozzie?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:17am:


More lies.  Or, perhaps you actually did mean perhaps and are just musing out loud for the Hell of it.  I pestered no-one to pursue anything.

We have received numerous telephone calls and emails from various member of our plaintiffs’ group regarding the decision of the Court on 1 May 2020 in which the Court gave judgment in favour of the defendant State in relation to the claims for equitable relief and breach of contract, and in which the Court granted leave for the plaintiffs to replead and thereby clarify the claim in those paragraphs relating to the Australian Consumer Law issues

You will recall that we said at the outset that this claim was somewhat novel, albeit the principles of law are relatively established ( save that the law relating to Estoppel/ equitable relief is not totally settled), and that it was likely that we would suffer a setback or two in the Queensland Supreme Court.

Our preliminary reading of the judgment made by his Honour Justice Bradley on 1 May 2020 is that it lengthy and detailed but on my reading of the judgment, it appears to be replete with contradictions, errors and misstatement of law, and accordingly it should be appealed.

It is my experience that the views expressed by one judge can often differ from the views and opinions of the judges in a Court of Appeal. If a Court of Appeal considers the judgment to be in error and accordingly is unsafe and/or wrong, it can set the judgment aside.

For the above reasons, we are examining the judgment in detail with view to filing a Notice of Appeal against that part of the judgment concerning the equitable relief and contract issues.

Equitable relief is the Estoppel issue, and is concerned with fairness and justice, as distinct from “black letter law” ( such as is the case with contract).

It is one thing to find fault and errors in a judgment. It is quite another thing to draft a Notice of Appeal, which must be confined to errors of law, and must be accurately pleaded and argued.

For the above reason we will not be in a position to provide you with a further, detailed analysis and grounds for appeal at this time, however, we have 28 days from the date of the judgment within which to file an serve any notice of appeal.

We will update you all through the website with developments and when the issues concerning the proposed appeal become more apparent.

Meantime: "Nil bastardum carborundum ! “


Thanks and kind regards,