![[2024] UKUT 47 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The appeal
The appeal
Mr. King and the Company appealed against the TC’s decision by a notice of appeal dated 9th March 2023 and also applied for a stay of the decision. As explained in paragraph 2 above, the TC granted a stay in respect of all aspects of the decision other than the revocation of Mr. King’s licence, a stay of which was not sought.
The grounds of appeal were summarised in the notice of appeal but set out in a detailed skeleton argument dated 10th March 2023 prepared by Mr. Finnegan, who also made supplementary written submissions dated 14th June 2023 and oral submissions to us at the hearing of the appeal. We are grateful to him for his careful and clear arguments. There were four grounds of appeal, as follows.
- 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