Discussion and decision
Discussion and decision
The following principles (extracted from the Digest of Traffic Commissioner Appeals) as to the proper approach to an appeal in the Upper Tribunal can be found in the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Peter Wright –v- Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ. 695:
The Tribunal is not required to rehear all the evidence by conducting what would, in effect, be a new first instance hearing. Instead it has the duty to hear and determine matters of both fact and law on the basis of the material before the Traffic Commissioner but without having the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
The Appellant ‘assumes the burden’ of showing that the decision appealed from is wrong.
In order to succeed the Appellant must show not merely that there are grounds for preferring a different view but that there are objective grounds upon which the Tribunal ought to conclude that the different view is the right one. Put another way it is not enough that the Tribunal might prefer a different view; the Appellant must show that the process of reasoning and the application of the relevant law require the Tribunal to adopt a different view.
The Tribunal sometimes uses the phrase “plainly wrong” as a shorthand description of this test. (NT/2013/52 & 53 Fergal Hughes v DOENI & Perry McKee Homes Ltd v DOENI, paragraph 8).
Operator licensing is based on trust, as has long been recognised by courts and tribunals.
“Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust those to whom they grant operator’s licences to operate in compliance with the regulatory regime. The public and other operators must also be able to trust operators to comply with the regulatory regime” (Footnote: 16).
In NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI, the Tribunal said:
“The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times the Department in Northern Ireland, (and Traffic Commissioners in GB), must feel able to trust operators to comply withall relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field. In our view this reflects the general public interest in ensuring that Heavy Goods Vehicles are properly maintained and safely driven. Unfair competition is against the public interest because it encourages operators to cut corners in order to remain in business. Cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation.
It is important that operators understand that if their actions cast doubt on whether they can be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime they are likely to be called to a Public Inquiry at which their fitness to hold an operator’s licence will be called into question. It will become clear, in due course, that fitness to hold an operator’s licence is an essential element of good repute.
- Heading
- Section 1
- Legal Framework
- Background
- Grounds for 1 st to 3 rd appellants
- Grounds of appeal for the 4 th appellant
- Upper Tribunal Hearing
- Decision on the preliminary issue
- Appeal submissions on behalf of the 1 st to 3 rd appellants
- The response on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport
- Ground 2 – status of James Strathearn
- Appeal Submissions for 4 th appellant
- Discussion and decision
- First ground of appeal for 1 st the 3 rd appellants--- apparent bias
- Second ground of appeal for 1 st to 3 rd appellants --- status of James Strathearn
- Discussion of 4 th appellant’s grounds of appeal
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 22 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)