Crompton (t/a Crompton Haulage) v Department Of Transport North Western Traffic Area Leeds

On an application treated as one for permission to bring a second appeal, the court applies essentially the same test as on applications for second appeals. Permission may be granted where the issues justify consideration by the Court of Appeal in the public interest. Permission does not indicate that the applicant is likely to succeed. Serious threats made immediately after a public inquiry raised an arguable question whether an operator remained of good repute under the Goods Vehicles Licensing of Operators Act 1995. The court left for the substantive appeal the questions of statutory interpretation, proportionality, the relevance of the conduct to operator licensing, and whether revocation should be regarded as punishment.

The Traffic Commissioner revoked the appellant’s operator’s licence on 26 November 2001, finding that he was no longer of good repute under section 27 of the Goods Vehicles Licensing of Operators Act 1995. The Court of the Transport Tribunal dismissed his appeal on 13 May 2002.

The appellant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The proposed appeal concerned the effect of serious conduct following a public inquiry, the statutory concept of good repute, proportionality, the relevance of conduct at the inquiry to the ability to operate, and the characterisation of revocation. The central issue at this stage was whether those questions warranted permission in the public interest.

Permission granted unanimously. Lord Justice Pill delivered the judgment and Lord Justice Waller agreed.

1. Without deciding whether the application was a second appeal, the court proceeded on that assumption and applied essentially the same test as on applications for second appeals.
2. Permission was justified because the proposed appeal raised issues sufficiently important to warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal in the public interest. The grant of permission did not suggest that the appellant was likely to succeed.
3. The court rejected the attempt to minimise the conduct as trivial or merely social. Threats had been made immediately after an adverse public inquiry decision, including conduct directed towards a witness and remarks concerning the Deputy Traffic Commissioner. The conduct was serious and concerned the proper administration of justice. The appellant’s subsequent apology did not remove the seriousness of the issue.
4. The substantive appeal would require consideration of whether the conduct justified a finding of lack of good repute under section 27(1) and Schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles Licensing of Operators Act 1995. The court identified, without deciding, questions concerning any statutory discretion after a finding of lack of good repute, proportionality, the connection between the conduct and the ability to operate, and whether revocation was properly characterised as punishment.
5. The application was allowed. The appeal was directed to be heard before three Lords Justices, with a time estimate of half a day.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 10 October 2002, permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was directed to be heard before three Lords Justices.
• Court of the Transport Tribunal. On 13 May 2002, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against revocation of the operator’s licence.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North Western Traffic Area. On 26 November 2001, the operator’s licence was revoked on the ground that the appellant was no longer of good repute.