[2025] UKUT 021 (AAC)

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. UA-2024-000078-T

ON APPEAL from A DECISION of the TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER for the East of England Traffic Area:

Norfolk Farm Produce Limited

Appellant

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Citron, Ms Pepperell and Mr Roantree

Hearing venue: Field House, Breams Buildings, London EC4

Representation:

Appellant: Nicholas Yeo of counsel, instructed by Leathes Prior Solicitors

SUMMARY OF DECISION

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995; appellant’s operator’s licence was revoked by the Traffic Commissioner under section 27 by reason the appellant’s nominated transport managers not satisfying the statutory requirements. Held (by a majority): the Traffic Commissioner’s direction to revoke was wrong because there had been material procedural unfairness: the Traffic Commissioner knew that a transport manager nominated by the appellant had a forthcoming public inquiry at which his good repute was to be considered; the appellant did not know this; the Traffic Commissioner did not tell the appellant this and also set the final ‘time limit’ (for expiration of the “period of grace”) a few days before the transport manager’s pubic inquiry, making it inevitable that the Traffic Commissioner would have material information at the date of its decision (the outcome of the public inquiry) which had not been available to the appellant prior to the time limit; and the Traffic Commissioner then made its direction to revoke on the basis of the outcome of that pubic inquiry (being the disqualification of that transport manager). Revocation direction of the Traffic Commissioner set aside; no further order by the Upper Tribunal, as the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation direction had been “stayed” and, in the interim, the appellant appeared to have put forward an alternative transport manager who satisfied the statutory requirements.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the Upper Tribunal follow.

DECISION