Ribble Motor Services Limited v Traffic Commission For the North West Traffic Area

When reviewing whether an administrative decision was lawful or perverse, the court must assess the decision by reference to the material available to the decision-maker at the time. Evidence obtained after the decision cannot be adduced to demonstrate that the earlier decision was unlawful or perverse.

Ribble Motor Services Limited appealed from the Transport Tribunal and sought to adduce fresh research evidence concerning two decisions under challenge. The proposed evidence had been obtained after those decisions and was intended to demonstrate that they were perverse. The central issue was whether later-acquired factual evidence could be used to assess the lawfulness of decisions by reference to matters unavailable to the original decision-makers.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the application.

1. The application to adduce the fresh research evidence was misconceived. The evidence was plainly inadmissible for the proposed purpose.
2. The relevant question was whether the decisions were lawful having regard to the material available to the decision-maker or decision-makers at the time. The court had to determine that question on the evidence then available.
3. Evidence of facts obtained subsequently could not be used to demonstrate that the earlier decisions were perverse. Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Longmore agreed with Lord Phillips MR.

• Transport Tribunal: two decisions were challenged; no citation or outcome is stated in the judgment.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence.