[2025] UKUT 062 (AAC)

The Appellants argue that the Traffic Commissioner failed to take into account that Mr Bain had accepted that he needed to undertake further professional training and had made a booking to undertake that training on 15^th and 16^th May 2023. That was clearly a factor in the Appellants’ favour, they submit, and should have been considered in the balancing exercise, in particular when answering the Priory Freight question.

The Appellants further submit that the Upper Tribunal should admit new evidence, namely Mr Bain’s successful completion of his CPC refresher course. The Appellants argue that this evidence meets the Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1WLR 1489 test for admission of fresh evidence on appeal because it was not available at the time of the Public Inquiry, it would probably have had an important influence on the result of the case, and it is plainly credible.