Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 226 (AAC)

Fecha: 14-Jul-2023

Grounds of appeal

Grounds of appeal

27.

The appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal indicated his disagreement with the DTC questioning his repute, imposing a “lengthy” disqualification and misinterpreting his intentions and circumstances. He requested a “comprehensive review… to ensure a fair evaluation of the case.” In particular, the Appellant sought a review of his associations with Streamlink, and with Mr Bett.

28.

Mr Backhouse, on behalf of the Appellant, provided a skeleton argument prior to the appeal, within which he set out detailed grounds of appeal, and upon which he expanded at the appeal hearing. The main grounds of appeal are as follows:

The DTC was plainly wrong to determine that the Appellant was gaining a competitive advantage by misuse of Mr Bett’s licence

ii)

The DTC was plainly wrong on the evidence and in law to determine that the Appellant intended from the start of his relationship Mr Philip Bett’s licence, to misuse the licence held by Mr Bett and plainly wrong to determine the linked fact that the Appellant owned “Streamlink” prior to the licence being obtained by Mr Bett

iii)

The DTC was wrong on the evidence to consider revocation of the licence as the only option available to him and did not, in the decision, give adequate consideration to the other options available.

iv)

The DTC did not hear representations from the Appellant over the decision to disqualify him as a transport manager and as a holder of a licence, nor as to the period of those disqualifications. This was procedurally unfair.

The DTC was wrong to impose a holder disqualification at all, but in any event the period of ten years was plainly excessive, there was no consideration in the decision as to why this was the appropriate period and again no representations were permitted from the Appellant.