Taxi: Licence dispute
The High Court has struck out a taxi driver’s fraud and harassment claims against a council and its law firm as “totally devoid of merit”.
Master Fontaine said she had “no jurisdiction” to impose a civil restraint order on Muhammad Arshad, as sought by Wokingham Council and law firm Weightmans, but would refer the matter to another judge.
She said it was “apparent from the procedural history of this matter” that Mr Arshad had “not been able to accept” a successful appeal by the council to the High Court.
Mr Arshad was awarded damages of £42,500 for psychiatric injury by Oxford County Court in 2021 after the council suspended and later revoked his Hackney carriage licence.
Master Fontaine said the taxi driver had “devised ever-increasing methods to circumvent the decision” of Mr Justice Bourne to allow the council’s appeal.
“I understand that this must have been a very disappointing decision for him, particularly after the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke which although dismissing some of his claims, awarded him a relatively substantial sum.
“However, it will not, in my view, assist him to continue to pursue a claim that has been determined where doing so is likely to put him further out of pocket by costs awards being made against him.
“It is also unfair that the defendants, particularly Wokingham, funded as it is by the public purse, should have to fund the continuing costs of opposing this claim and the many applications brought by the claimant.”
Mr Arshad, who represented himself in the hearing before Master Fontaine, launched fresh claims against both the council and Weightmans in June 2025.
These included false representation, concealment, fundamental dishonesty and abuse of position.
Master Fontaine said the fraud claims against the council showed “no reasonable grounds for being made” and were an abuse of process
A claim of misfeasance in public office was also made against Wokingham, along with harassment and human rights violations, all of which were rejected by Master Fontaine.
The judge said it was “impossible to identify what claims the claimant could properly make” against Weightmans.
“I draw the same conclusions in relation to the fraud and harassment claims as I do in relation to the same claim against Wokingham, namely that they show no reasonable grounds for being made, are an abuse of process, and fail to comply with the requirements of the CPR and the order of Master Eastman.
“The claims for misfeasance in public office and under the Human Rights Act, could not be made against the second defendant, a private limited partnership, and fall to be struck out on the same grounds.”
Leave a Comment