Case No. UKUT-00320-(AAC)

15.Prior to setting out what the TC decided and why it was that he reached the outcome he did, it is worth setting out something of the relevant statutory framework.16.Section 2 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 provides, subject to certain limited exceptions which have no application here, that “no person shall use a goods vehicle on a road for the carriage of goods for hire or reward, or for or in connection with any trade or business carried on by him, except under a licence issued under this act….”17.Section 13 of the Act provides that upon an application for a standard licence (and it is a standard licence which the appellant company was seeking) a TC must consider, amongst other things, “whether the requirements of sections 13A and 13C are satisfied”. Section 13A relevantly provides:“(1)…..(2)the first requirement is that the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the applicant – (a) ….. (b) is of good repute (as determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 3)….”.18.Paragraph 1 to Schedule 3 relevantly provides:“1.-(1)In determining whether an individual is of good repute, a traffic commissioner may have regard to any matter but shall, in particular, have regard to –(a) any relevant conviction of the individual or of his servants or agents;(b) any other information in his possession which appears to him to relate to the individual’s fitness to hold a licence. (2)in determining whether a company is of good repute, a traffic commissioner shall have regard to all the material evidence including, in particular-(a) any relevant convictions of the company or of any of its officers, servants or agents;(b) any other information in his possession as to the previous conduct of-(i) any of the company’s officers, servants or agents, or (ii) any of its directors, in whatever capacity,if that conduct appears to him relate to the company’s fitness to hold a licence……”19.As to the scope of an evaluation concerning repute, in NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport and Sons Limited v DOENI, the Upper Tribunal commented that the breadth of the requirement to be of good repute meant “for example, that an operator who cannot be trusted to comply with the operator’s licencing regime is unlikely to be fit to hold an operator’s licence”. In T/2016/72 Catch 22 Bus Limited and Phillip Higgs v Secretary of State for Transport it was said that a decision-maker may have regard to conduct which is not unlawful. In that case, the appellant’s conduct which had involved following and filming the then Senior Traffic Commissioner in an attempt to obtain footage which might cause her reputational damage, was relevant to good repute. That decision of the Upper Tribunal was upheld in the Court of Appeal (Catch 22 Bus Limited and Phillip Higgs v Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWCA Civ 1022) where it was said by Sharp LJ, giving the leading judgement, that the facts demonstrated that the conduct of Mr Higgs “could properly be characterised as an afront to the regulatory system rather than (merely) an afront to the particular individual concerned”.