![[2025] UKUT 021 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Summary view of the minority of the panel
Summary view of the minority of the panel
The view of the minority, in summary, is that, viewed in context, the TC’s decision to revoke the appellant’s licence did not involve material procedural unfairness. The contextual facts on which the minority places particular weight are:
the fact that on 20 July 2023 the appellant told OTC that it was conducting interviews and would have a transport manager in place before the end of September
the fact that OTC had consistently urged the appellant to take action and that the result of failure to take action within the time limit would be revocation of the appellant’s licence
the fact that, despite this, the appellant’s nominations of Mr Bell and Mr Shilling were made very close to the expiry of the period of grace granted
the fact that the appellant did not explain to OTC why Mr Bell’s nomination was not pursued, following OTC’s letter of 24 November 2023
the fact that (as stated in the appellant’s grounds of appeal) Mr Shilling had worked for the appellant between 2009 and 2017.
The minority takes the view that, even though the TC had, and relied on, information that the appellant did not, that was not procedurally unfair, as it was for the licence-holder to discover, by its own diligence, relevant information about its nominated transport managers, including, in this case, the information about Mr Shilling known to OTC.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. We order that the direction of the Traffic Commissioner to revoke Norfolk Farm Produce Limited’s operator’s licence, conveyed in a letter of
- The revocation direction appealed against
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal proceedings in this case
- Background about the appellant
- Events leading up to the TC’s direction to revoke
- Events subsequent to the TC’s direction to revoke
- The appellant’s case in brief
- Was the TC’s direction to revoke wrong?
- The decision of the majority of the panel
- Summary view of the minority of the panel
- Conclusions