![[2025] UKUT 062 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
REASONS FOR DECISION
REASONS FOR DECISION
Subject matter: revocation of standard PSV operator’s licence; fairness of public inquiry proceedings.
Case law referred to: Bryan Haulage (No. 2) T/2002/217; Leafy Designs Ltd [2023] UKUT 111 (AAC).
Decisions under appeal
These proceedings involve appeals against the following decisions, taken by the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland following a public inquiry hearing:
revocation of an operator’s licence, granted under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (PPVA 1981), held by Douglas Bain (t/a Bains Coaches). This decision was taken under sections 17(1)(a), (1)(b), (3)(a), (3)(aa) and (3)(c) of the PPVA 1981;
revocation of an operator’s licence, granted under the PPVA 1981, held by ABC Methlick Ltd (a company of which Mr Bain was director). This decision was taken under sections 17(1)(a) and (b) of the PPVA 1981;
an order disqualifying both those operators from holding an operator’s licence for a period of five years;
an order disqualifying Douglas Bain from acting as a transport manager for a period of five years.
Subsequently, the Traffic Commissioner granted a stay on the coming into effect of those decisions pending determination of these appeal proceedings before the Upper Tribunal.
- 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