![[2025] UKUT 021 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Upper Tribunal proceedings in this case
The Upper Tribunal proceedings in this case
We had before us a bundle of 203 pages (which included a bundle of 144 pages prepared by OTC), a written skeleton argument of the appellant, a chronology prepared by the appellant, and 73 pages of additional evidence from the appellant.
The additional evidence included a letter of 8 March 2024 from the appellant’s solicitors to OTC, referring to the stay granted by the Upper Tribunal, and stating that the appellant wished to add a transport manager to its licence, Steven Braim; attached were a copy of a completed from TM1, a statement by Mr Braim about how he would be continuing to manage his hours, and qualification and refresher training certificates from 2009 and 2021. There was also a printout dated 26 March 2024 from the OTC’s system, indicating that an online application had been made in respect of Mr Braim.
We are grateful to Mr Yeo for his submissions on the appeal and his clearly and carefully presented documentary material.
Mr Yeo also sent the Upper Tribunal, at the same time as his skeleton argument, written “submissions relating to stay”. We note the following:
the issue of “stay” was not before the Upper Tribunal in the hearing of the appeal itself; nor did the case management directions require or envisage submissions on that issue; however,
in granting a stay at an earlier stage in the proceedings, Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell had given as one of the reasons, that the Upper Tribunal may wish to address doubts expressed by the TC, at the stay stage, as to the correctness of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Ptarmigan (and if the appellant went out of business before the appeal was heard (on account of no stay having been granted), leading to withdrawal of the appeal, that opportunity would be lost); and the appellant had interpreted that as meaning that issues relating to stay would or could be considered in the Upper Tribunal’s appeal decision.
Our view is that because the pre-hearing case management of this appeal has not envisaged a hearing of the “stay” issues at the appeal stage (by, for example, inviting observations from the TC), it would not be fair and just for us to give our views on those issues. We therefore decline to do so.
- 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