[2025] UKUT 021 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 021 (AAC)

Fecha: 20-Nov-2024

Conclusions

Disposal

45.

Having decided to allow the appeal and set aside the revocation direction for error of law, we have considered whether to make any further order. We note that because a stay was granted in this case, our allowing the appeal and setting aside the revocation direction continues, rather than alters, the status quo. On the evidence before us, the appellant has made reasonable endeavours to designate Mr Braim as its transport manager. We agree with the appellant’s submission that it is unnecessary for us to make any further orders, as it will now be for the TC to respond, if it has not done so already, to that nomination. We are aware that in Autoworx Recovery Ltd[2024] UKUT 421 (AAC) and Ashro Shipping Ltd [2024] UKUT 425 (AAC) (published on 18 December 2024 and 8 January 2025 respectively i.e. subsequent to the hearing of this appeal), the Upper Tribunal, in factual matrices engaging the same statutory framework as this case, did make orders upon allowing the appeal; but it seems to us that was the result of the different facts in those cases, including that there had been no stay of the TC’s revocation directions in those cases.

46.

In the light of the above, it is unnecessary for us to consider the appellant’s other arguments and grounds. We would however make clear that we did not accept the argument that the revocation direction was in error of law by reason of the 22 December 2023 letter seemingly referring to a failure to satisfy s13A(3)(a) (because it referred to the appellant itself not being professionally competent), when that provision could not apply, given that the appellant was not an individual; in our view, it was obvious from the context that the provision being invoked was s13A(3)(b) (which applies to companies, and cross refers to the requirements of Schedule 3, which include the professional competence of the designated transport managers). The letter expressed itself clumsily; but that does not in our view amount to a material legal error, as the context made clear what was meant.

Zachary Citron

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Kerry Pepperell

Gary Roantree

Members of the Upper Tribunal

Authorised by the Judge for issue on 20 January 2025