[2025] UKUT 146 (AAC)

Mr Davies began his submissions by setting out what he submitted was the relevant law and guidance from authority. He made reference to section 14ZA of the 1981 Act and the requirements for standard licences and, in particular, professional competence. Section 17(1) requires the TC to revoke a standard licence if it appears at any time that the holder no longer satisfies the requirement of professional competence. Section 17(4) provides that the TC shall not revoke a licence without first holding a PI, if the holder requests that, however, as was noticed in the case of Atbus Ltd (Footnote: ⁹), the legislation does not otherwise preclude a TC from holding a PI.

Mr Davies relied on Recital 12 of the 2009 regulations which provides as follows (the underlining is emphasis provided by Mr Davies);

“Fair competition and road transport that is fully compliant with the rules call for a uniform level of monitoring by Member States. The national authorities responsible for monitoring undertakings and the validity of their authorisations have a crucial role to play in this respect, and it is appropriate to ensure that they take suitable measures if necessary, in particular in the most serious cases by suspending or withdrawing authorisations or declaring as unsuitable transport managers who are repeatedly negligent or who act in bad faith. This must be preceded by due consideration of the measure with respect to the proportionality principle. An undertaking should, however, be warned in advance and should have a reasonable period of time within which to rectify the situation before incurring such penalties.”

Under reference to BradleyFold Travel Ltd & Peter Wright –v- Secretary of State for Transport Mr Davies accepted that it was for the Appellant to show that the decision of the DTC was “plainly wrong”.

In Atbus the Upper Tribunal considered the revocation of a licence pursuant to section 17(1)(a) of the 1981 Act based on an apparent failure to reply to a letter requiring the nomination of a new Transport Manager and it held that:

“…principles of natural justice will sometimes dictate that [a public inquiry] should be held.”

In finding that the circumstances in that case were such that the Traffic Commissioners should have convened a public inquiry, and remitting the matter for one to be so organised, the Upper Tribunal noted that:

“The Appellant had operated his business for some time. There had been no clear evidence of concerns likely to justify revocation other than the transport manager issue. The steps which the Appellant had taken to appoint a new transport manager could not realistically be regarded as free from potential criticism but some steps, at least, had been taken. Revocation is undoubtedly a serious step to take. There was the possibility that relevant evidence would emerge during the course of the PI and/or that relevant arguments of a factual or legal nature would have been put. We have concluded, therefore, that in this case the circumstances and matters of fairness dictated that a PI ought to have been held.”

Mr Davies submitted that it has long been established by the appellate courts that operator licences are valuable property for the purposes of Article 1 of the First Protocol and that whilst they can be revoked in pursuit of a legitimate aim, the action must be proportionate (see Crompton t/a David Crompton Haulage v Department of Transport North Western Traffic Area [2003] R.T.R. 34, cited with approval by the Upper Tribunal in Bryan Haulage No. 2 (2002/217), leading to the formulation of the question, “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?”.

Article 1 of the First Protocol provides that:

“1.

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

2.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”