Emphasis Added
]17.An additional and preliminary question to that in Bryan Haulage (No.2) should also be asked as explained in 2009/225 Priority Freight:“The third point taken by Mr. Laprell was that the Traffic Commissioner gave no reasons for concluding that ‘the conduct was such that the Appellant company ought to be put out of business’. There will be cases where it is only necessary to set out the conduct in question to make it apparent that the operator ought to be put out of business. We are quite satisfied that this was not such a case. On the contrary this was a case which called for a careful assessment of the weight to be given to all the various competing factors.
- 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