An Appellant, if he is to succeed, must persuade the appeal court or tribunal not merely that a different view of the facts from that taken below is reasonable and possible, but that there are objective grounds upon which the court ought to conclude that a different view is the right one
…The true distinction is between the case where the appeal court might prefer a different view (perhaps on marginal grounds) and one where
- DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
- Subject matter
- The Appeal
- The TC’s decision
- The Grounds of Appeal
- The Hearing and the Appellants’ submissions
- The Law
- Muck It Ltd and Others v. Secretary of State for Transport
- Emphasis Added
- In our view before answering the ‘Bryan Haulage question’ it will often be helpful to pose a preliminary question, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime
- An Appellant, if he is to succeed, must persuade the appeal court or tribunal not merely that a different view of the facts from that taken below is reasonable and possible, but that there are objective grounds upon which the court ought to conclude that a different view is the right one
- it concludes that the process of reasoning, and the application of the relevant law, require it to adopt a different view. The burden which an Appellant assumes is to show that the case falls within this latter category
- Discussion and analysis
- Remedy
- Judge Rupert Jones