[2025] UKUT 021 (AAC)

The statutory scheme relevant to the events set out above is that of sections 27 and 29: the TC is required by statute to direct revocation of a licence where, amongst other things, the licence-holder no longer has a Schedule 3 compliant transport manager; the statute itself sets out certain procedural requirements, such as the giving of notice by the TC, with its grounds; a 21-day period for the licence holder to make representations, which the TC must consider; a power of the TC to set a time limit (not to exceed, in this case, 9 months after the giving of notice by the TC) for the licence holder to rectify the situation, with a prohibition on the TC making the direction if the licence holder rectifies the situation within the time limit (the period up to the end of the time limit is known as a “period of grace”); and the right of the licence holder to require that the TC first hold an inquiry (known as a “public inquiry”).

In this case, a period of grace was granted, albeit in increments – ultimately, the time limit set by the TC was 8 December 2023 – and the way in which the appellant was trying to “rectify the situation” was to designate one or more Schedule 3 compliant transport managers. In a nutshell, the TC’s reasoning for directing revocation was that, by the time limit, no Schedule 3 compliant transport manager had been designated. That was because, in simple terms, the appellant had not, following the TC’s letter of 24 November 2023, pursued the nomination of Mr Bell – and the TC had decided that Mr Shilling, the appellant’s other candidate, did not meet the Schedule 3 requirements owing to his imminent disqualification as a transport manager.

We note case law that shows that the onus was on the appellant to persuade the TC that its transport manager candidates were Schedule 3 compliant: