![[2025] UKUT 062 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground 3 – selective reliance on TE Jarvis’ evidence
Ground 3 – selective reliance on TE Jarvis’ evidence
At the hearing of this appeal, Mr O’Leary conceded that, if Grounds 1 and 2 failed, the remaining Grounds would face an uphill struggle.
TE Jarvis gave oral evidence that, had the information that was before the present public inquiry been supplied earlier, it was unlikely that the Appellants would have been called to an inquiry. This aspect of TE Jarvis’ evidence was not acknowledged in the Traffic Commissioner’s reasons. It should have been because it was clearly material to the balancing exercise undertaken by the Commissioner.
- Heading
- Appellants: (1) Mr Douglas Bain (in his capacity as the holder of an operator’s licence, trading as Bain’s Coaches, and in his capacity as a designated transport manager) References: PM0000657 (Bain’s Coaches); PM001603 (ABC (Methlick) Ltd)
- This appeal is ALLOWED . The four decisions taken by the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland on 6 August 2023 are set aside (ref’s PM0000657 and PM001603) because they involved errors on points of law
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Background
- 2019 public inquiry
- Events preceding the present public inquiry
- The public inquiry
- Traffic Commissioner’s reasons for her decisions
- Commissioner’s findings about Mr Bain
- Why the Commissioner revoked both operator’s licences
- Grounds of appeal, and arguments in support
- Ground 2 – flawed obstructive course of conduct finding
- Ground 3 – selective reliance on TE Jarvis’ evidence
- Ground 4 – failure to take into account material evidence
- Ground 5 – Traffic Commissioner’s weighing exercise
- Determination of appeal
- Grounds 2 to 5
- Conclusions