![[2024] UKUT 47 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Introduction
Introduction
This is an appeal by Mr. Kevin King, trading as Kevin King & Sons Transport, and by KD Plant Hire and Haulage Limited (“the Company”) against the decisions of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England (“the TC”) given on 13th February 2023 that:
The operator’s licence in the name of Kevin King & Sons Transport (for convenience “Mr. King’s licence”) was revoked from 23.59 on 13th March 2023.
The Company’s operator’s licence was revoked from 23.59 on 13th March 2023.
Mr. King lost his good repute as a transport manager.
Mr. King was disqualified from acting as a transport manager for 12 months.
Mr. King was disqualified from holding or applying for an operator’s licence for 12 months beginning on 13th March 2023.
Ms. Debbie Wallace, a director of the Company, was disqualified from holding or applying for an operator’s licence for 12 months beginning on 13th March 2023.
On bringing their appeal, the appellants also sought a stay of the decisions set out in paragraphs 1.2 to 1.6 above. The stay was granted by the TC on 14th March 2023.
- 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