Case No. UKUT-00272-(AAC)

5.A company has a legal personality distinct as from its members (shareholders), owners, directors or officers. The company can therefore hold an operator’s licence in its own name. The licensing legislation refers to a company. In the Companies Act 2006 the term company is usually defined as a body under that legislation but it can, in limited circumstances, include other bodies and overseas companies. Further guidance is available via Companies House.20. The Head of the TRU determined that the applicant was Mr Andrew Murphy as an individual, but the arguments were presented in the name of the company, Andrew Murphy Transport Ltd. He was mindful of the fact that a sole director often does not distinguish him or herself from their company bearing the same name, but concluded that the applicant, Mr Andrew Murphy was not the owner of the vehicle.21. The Upper Tribunal agrees with this conclusion. Notably, while the V5C document is not evidence of ownership per se, it is evidence of the entity that pays to keep it and maintain it, but that entity was documented as “Andrew Murphy Transport” which is different from either “Andrew Murphy” or “Andrew Murphy Transport Ltd”. Equally, the invoice is in the name of “Andrew Murphy” but the lack of date on the invoice undermines its credibility as an authentic invoice received at the date of sale of the vehicle. Although evidence of a fleet insurance policy was produced to the Head of the TRU, the vehicle does not feature on it and the Schedule which provides for the list of vehicles covered under the policy, was omitted from evidence. The vehicle was being driven by someone entirely separate from the company, with no documentation to demonstrate that he was driving it on behalf of another person, such as the owner. We agree with the Head of the TRU that the vehicle is, on the balance of probabilities, registered to an entity within Mr Murphy’s control but there are too many questions arising from the imprecise and inconsistent paperwork presented on behalf of Mr Murphy. We find therefore that the decision of the Head of the TRU is not “plainly wrong”; we are in agreement with his conclusion that the then applicant for return of the vehicle had not satisfied him on the balance of probabilities that either he or his company was the lawful “owner” of the vehicle.