[2025] UKUT 207 (AAC)

I explained to Mr Wilson and Mr Towson Smith that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is one of review rather than rehearing and that the Upper Tribunal could not, unless certain conditions were met, take account of material that was not before the Traffic Commissioner and that we had to consider the Appellant’s financial standing at the date of the Commissioner’s decision.

In the present case, that means that it does not help the Company to produce to us evidence showing that as a matter of fact the Company satisfies the financial standing requirement either during or following the relevant period, if that information was not before the Commissioner. We have to consider whether there is something wrong with the Commissioner’s decision on the basis of the material the Commissioner had.

The Company was put clearly on notice of the Commissioner’s concerns about the financial evidence and given a proper amount of time to provide further evidence before the decision was made.

Mr Wilson accepted that the Company was not able to satisfy the financial standing requirement at the time, although he maintains that it can now satisfy the requirement.

We find that the Commissioner correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and was required, on the evidence before the Commissioner, to refuse the application. The decision was certainly not plainly wrong.

As I indicated to Mr Wilson, it is open the Appellant to make a further application for a licence, relying on more recent evidence of the financial position.