[2025] UKUT 071 (AAC)

For the reasons we have given, we have come to the view that the TC was wrong to deal with the application for an adjournment as he did. We are satisfied that if the Company and Mr. Dhillon had been able to obtain legal representation the outcome of the public inquiry could have been different. We recognise that it is not a foregone conclusion that if the TC had granted an adjournment of a few weeks legal representation would in fact have been obtained. Nevertheless we decide that in the interests of justice the appeal should be allowed and the decisions in relation to all three licences should be remitted for a further hearing. As a result the direction for disqualification falls.

The Company and Mr. Dhillon should understand, however, that it does not follow that the outcome of the further hearing will in fact be different. It remains unclear to us why Mr. Dhillon was not able to achieve a higher degree of regulatory compliance between June 2018 and June 2024. We make allowances for the fact that the need for an interpreter, no matter how competent the interpreter might be, can complicate proceedings such as a public inquiry, but some of his evidence was unsatisfactory: for example, his assertion that the formal warnings were not included in any letter and his explanation for the defects leading to the prohibitions. We have also referred in paragraphs 70 and 71 above to other points arising from the documents which appear to us to require explanation.