![[2025] UKUT 071 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Appellants’ submissions
The Appellants’ submissions
Against that background, Mr. Finnegan contends that:
The TC erred in not granting an adjournment to allow the Company to obtain legal representation;
The TC’s decision to revoke both operator licences was disproportionate;
The TC erred in failing to consider or to give adequate weight to the positives in the case;
The TC’s decision to disqualify Mr. Dhillon was disproportionate;
The TC was plainly wrong in refusing the application for licence OF2067675.
We consider those submissions noting that Mr. Finnegan does not contend that the TC was plainly wrong to find the breaches of section 26 which were referred to in his decision. We think that is a realistic approach having regard to the facts set out above. We note that the relief being sought is remission for a further hearing.
- 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