![[2024] UKUT 47 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground 4: insufficient reasons given
Ground 4: insufficient reasons given
This ground relates to the TC’s finding that grounds for action are established against Mr. King’s licence on the basis of prohibitions within the last five years. It is pointed out that that is the only mention of prohibitions in the decision and is contended that it is not clear which prohibitions the TC was referring to or why he felt they were of such severity as to constitute part of his decision to revoke the licence. In his oral submissions Mr. Finnegan relied on his skeleton argument in relation to this point.
- 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