The Hearing and the Appellants’ submissions
11.Mr Backhouse appeared for the Appellant at the hearing on 25 April 2022. We are grateful for his assistance. He relied on grounds of appeal set out above and five alleged errors in the TC’s decision which we address in the discussion section below.
- 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