[2025] UKUT 062 (AAC)

The four decisions taken by the Traffic Commissioner, as described at the start of these reasons, are set aside. However, Mr Bain, through his counsel, accepts that his operations raised genuine regulatory concerns (for example, his Ground 2 arguments conceded that it was open to the Commissioner to have found that Mr Bain was obstructive in his dealings with VE Mackie). For this reason, we do not simply set aside the Commissioner’s decisions and leave it at that.

Our order disposing of this appeal presumes that there will be a fresh public inquiry hearing. However, the Upper Tribunal should respect the regulatory expertise of the Traffic Commissioners and, accordingly, our order reserves power to the Senior Traffic Commissioner to decide not to convene a fresh public inquiry hearing if his view is that, at the present time, regulatory action is not considered necessary. If there is to be a fresh public inquiry hearing, our order requires the call-up letters that preceded the 2023 public inquiry to be read as if they included, amongst the matters to be addressed, (a) VE Mackie’s allegation that certain maintenance documents were falsified by being dated before the actual date of completion and (b) any further matters which a Traffic Commissioner notifies the Appellant in writing will be addressed at the inquiry hearing. But, again, we reserve power to the Senior Commissioner to instead decide that fresh call-up letters are required.

Finally, we apologise for the delay in giving this decision. As we understand the Appellants were informed, the judge has been absent from his duties while recovering from serious injuries sustained in an accident shortly after the hearing of this appeal.