![[2024] UKUT 398 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The appellants’ grounds of appeal
The appellants’ grounds of appeal
The appellants’ (revised) grounds of appeal may be summarised as follows:
that the TC’s decision dealt with evidence unfairly or irrationally, in particularly by relying on evidence of Mr Saleh, that was hostile to the appellants
that there had been procedural unfairness in the proceedings before the TC; in particular, that Miss Kufandirori was, at the public inquiry, unprepared for the hostility of the case against the appellants, in particular, the hostile evidence of Mr Saleh; and that the TC was biased and hostile, appearing to have made up his mind on the evidence prior to the hearing
that it was wrong for the TC’s decision to have found as a fact that Miss Kufandirori (1) withdrew the application to vary Excell Logistics Ltd’s licence; and (2) was dishonest in the interview with DVSA
that it was wrong for the TC’s decision to have concluded that Miss Kufandirori could not be trusted to run a compliant operation in the future.
- Heading
- The appeal is allowed
- The TC’s written decision
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal proceedings in this case
- The appellants’ grounds of appeal
- The procedural fairness issue
- Summary of Mr Saleh’s letters to OTC prior to the public inquiry
- Summary of the call up letter to Excell Logistics Ltd
- Public inquiry transcript
- Our analysis of the procedural unfairness argument
- First question: was Miss Kufandirori fairly made aware of the contents of Mr Saleh’s letters to OTC prior to the public inquiry?
- Second question: fairness of Miss Kufandirori not being made aware of the content of Mr Saleh’s letters to OTC prior to public inquiry
- Third question: did the unfairness make a material difference?
- Conclusion on procedural unfairness
- Conclusions