[2025] UKUT 217 (AAC)

Paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 provides:

“The Upper Tribunal are to have full jurisdiction to hear and

determine on all matters (whether of law or of fact) for the purpose

of the exercise of any of their functions under an enactment related

to transport”.

Paragraph 17(3) of that Schedule provides that the Upper Tribunal may not take into consideration any circumstances that did not exist at the time of the determination which is the subject of the appeal.

The Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (as amended) governs applications and grants of goods vehicle operators’ licences and related matters. Transport Managers, as that term is used in the legislation, are required to be of good repute.

Under paragraphs 16(1) and (2) of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act:

The Court of Appeal in Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 stated that the Upper Tribunal has the duty, on an appeal to it, to determine matters of fact and law on the basis of the material which had been before the Traffic Commissioner but without the benefit of seeing and hearing from witnesses. The Court of Appeal said that the burden lies on an appellant to show that the process of reasoning and the application of the relevant law requires the Upper Tribunal to take a different view to that taken by the Traffic Commissioner.

In T/2014/25/26 H. Sivyer (Transport) Ltd. and Simon Sivyer[2014] UKUT 0404 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal said that where a Transport Manager has substantially failed in his or her duty to maintain continuous and effective control of an operator’s fleet of vehicles the remedy is to consider and, where appropriate, find loss of good repute as a Transport Manager. Once good repute has been lost, disqualification from acting as a Transport Manager is a mandatory consequence (see paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act). There is no opportunity, after a finding of loss of good repute, to consider whether or not disqualification is a proportionate response. Instead, proportionality is to be considered when deciding whether or not to make a finding of loss of repute. To justify a finding of loss of repute the matters proved must be such that disqualification represents a proportionate response.