[2024] UKUT 47 (AAC)

As we have said, this ground relates only to there having been prohibitions in the preceding 5 years. It is true that the prohibitions are not mentioned in the decision except as a ground for action against Mr. King’s licence. There is no discussion of their nature and significance. The report of the maintenance investigation was, however, clearly identified in the case summary and the call-up letter dated 22^nd December 2022 as a matter to be considered at the inquiry and the report was included in the papers.

We recognise that at the inquiry Mr. King was not asked about the prohibitions and Ms. Bell did not address them. This was clearly regarded as a minor point by comparison with the double-carding and misleading issues. While it might have been preferable for them to have been dealt with expressly at the inquiry if the TC intended to place reliance on them in his decision, we have no doubt that he would have reached the same conclusion even if there had been no record of prohibitions giving rise to the possibility of revocation under s.26 of the 1995 Act. This is not a point which leads us to conclude that the TC’s decision was plainly wrong.