![[2025] UKUT 071 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Points arising at the hearing
Points arising at the hearing
At the hearing we had a number of queries arising from the papers before us which were mentioned to Mr. Finnegan and which we now record. They were as follows:
At the start of his evidence at the inquiry Mr. Dhillon surprisingly referred to having 10 vehicles.
We noted that p.189 shows a maintenance agreement between Truckmend London Limited and the Company dated 5th January 2022 providing for maintenance of vehicles at the Iver depot. That is the proposed operating centre for licence OF2067675. The Company moved there in August 2023.
It is also the case that significant distances seem to have been driven by the vehicles LJ67HGP and DX64BDO in late January 2023 (p.360), at a time when it appears from p.386 that vehicle DX64BDO was declared off the road and when, according to the application for an adjournment, the Company was doing no business. Mr. Dhillon suggested that that was for road testing.
In response to Mr. Finnegan’s submission that Mr. Dhillon had undertaken a refresher course as a transport manager, we asked him if the certificate was in the bundle. In fact, the bundle includes the original certificate of professional competence dated 22nd January 2019 at p.377, but the only refresher course certificate is at p.376 and is a driver certificate recording attendance at a seven hour course on 16th January 2023. After the hearing we were provided with a certificate of refresher training as a transport manager recording attendance, with the same training provider, on 16th and 17th January 2023. We find this curious, but do not need to take the point further.
Mr. Dhillon referred to having engaged a transport consultant. We asked at the hearing what the name of the consultant was. Mr. Finnegan was not able to give us an immediate answer, but his instructing solicitors have since informed the Upper Tribunal that the firm in question is The Road Transport Consultancy Limited.
We also inquired about the reference to Japji 7676 Ltd in the application for licence OH2017026. Again Mr. Finnegan was not able to give us an immediate answer, since Mr. Dhillon apparently did not know what that was about, but as already noted in paragraph 7 above we have also subsequently been given some information relating to that company.
We return to some of these points in paragraph 101 below.
- Heading
- Section 1
- The facts
- The public inquiry
- The TC’s decision
- The initial grounds of appeal and the application for a stay
- The legal context
- 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
- The Appellants’ submissions
- Failure to grant an adjournment
- The revocation decisions were disproportionate
- The TC failed to give adequate weight to the positives
- The disqualification decision was disproportionate
- Refusal of the application for licence OF2067675
- Points arising at the hearing
- Discussion
- Conclusions