![[2024] UKUT 47 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the appellants do not satisfy the Bradley Fold test. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
Finally, we apologise for the length of time it has taken to produce this decision. That is owing to illness in the judge’s family.
E. Ovey
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
8th February 2024
- Heading
- IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal be DISMISSED
- CASES REFERRED TO: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223; Dukes Transport (Craigavon) Limited , Appeal 68/2001; Bryan Haulage Limited (No. 2) 217/200
- Introduction
- The facts Mr. King’s licence
- Mr. King as transport manager
- The Company’s licence
- The hearing before the TC
- The TC’s decision
- The appeal
- Ground 1: the finding of fact that Mr. King pressured Mr. Day into using two digital tachograph cards was wrong, arrived at in error and was based on a lack of procedural propriety
- Ground 2: the finding of fact that Mr. King and Ms. Wallace failed to admit to misleading the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in relation to the Company licence application was arrived at in error
- Ground 3: the regulatory action taken by the TC was disproportionate
- Ground 4: insufficient reasons given
- The applicable law
- Discussion
- Ground 2 (finding of failure to admit misleading the OTC)
- Ground 3 (regulatory action disproportionate)
- Ground 4 (insufficient reasons)
- Conclusions