Subject matter
:Revocation under sections 26 and 27 of the 1995 Act; procedural flaws in the PI given the grounds contained in the calling in letter were not established and the grounds relied upon for revocation were not notified in advance with no independent evidence presented from the DVSA in support; the grounds for revocation relied upon were not sufficiently identified and those findings of fact and evaluative conclusions were demonstrated to be wrong by the Appellant.
- 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