[2025] UKUT 071 (AAC)

2013-07 that the Bryan Haulage and Priority Freight questions might appropriately be asked in relation to the revocation of a restricted licence. The Tribunal put the position as follows:

“18.

We disagree that, in this case, the “Priority Freight” and “Bryan Haulage” questions were inappropriate. In our view, they were helpful. Although the “Priority Freight” and “Bryan Haulage” cases relate to repute, the fundamental analysis arises from the fact that an operator’s licence (whether restricted or standard) is a possession and, as a matter of compliance with [the European Convention on Human Rights], a proportionate approach is required, and consideration of the likelihood of future compliance should inform the approach taken.

19.

Although, in the absence of argument on the point, we draw back from holding that the “Priority Freight” approach is a requirement when considering the question of fitness to hold a restricted operator’s licence, we consider that the [Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s] approach was not inappropriate in the circumstances of this case. In particular, the “Priority Freight” question concerning future compliance (or otherwise) is very likely to be relevant to fitness in most cases. We do not think that fitness is a significantly lower hurdle than the requirement to be of good repute, it is simply a different requirement. An operator putting badly maintained vehicles on the road represents an equal menace to public safety, whether or not they hold a restricted licence or a standard licence. If an operator (even a restricted licence holder) cannot be trusted to comply in future, we do not see how any such operator can hope to be regarded as fit to hold an operator’s licence.

20.

So far as the “Bryan Haulage” question is concerned, many holders of a restricted licence will not go out of business if their operator’s licence is revoked … In our view, having asked the “Priority Freight” question relating to future compliance, a Traffic Commissioner cannot be criticised for asking himself, in the context of assessing fitness, whether an operator’s conduct is such that they deserve to lose their restricted operator’s licence, whatever theconsequences.”

As set out in paragraph 43 above, in this case the TC did ask himself the Priority Freight question and it has not been suggested that he was wrong to do so. He also referred to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10, which identifies a number of possible regulatory starting points and placed this case in the “Severe to Serious” category, which is suggested in cases involving “Persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response or previous public inquiry history”. Mr. Finnegan accepts that the TC was right to adopt that starting point. In such a case the possible forms of regulatory action identified in the Statutory Document range from revocation with detailed consideration of disqualification to significant time limited curtailment that may materially affect the transport operation.