Crompton (t/a David Crompton Haulage) v Department of Transport North Western Area

The Court of Appeal allowed an operator's appeal against decisions of the Traffic Commissioner and the Transport Tribunal which had revoked the appellant's operator's licence under section 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and schedule 3. The court held that although post-hearing loutish and intimidating conduct can be relevant to an individual's fitness to hold a licence, a traffic commissioner must focus on matters relevant to fitness and apply a proportionality assessment when the inevitable sanction is licence revocation.

The Traffic Commissioner was found to have placed excessive emphasis on the unacceptability of the conduct and insufficient regard to whether the conduct, viewed in context and by the time of decision, demonstrated a continuing loss of good repute. The Transport Tribunal failed to identify that error of law. The appeal was allowed and the decisions below were set aside; no order as to costs was made.

Background and facts:

• The appellant, trading as David Crompton Haulage and a licence-holder since 1994, faced earlier proceedings after a driver employed by him (his brother) was convicted of falsifying tachograph records. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner found the appellant complicit and revoked his licence; that decision was successfully appealed to the Transport Tribunal on 13 December 2001.
• Separately, after a public inquiry on 27 June 2001, an incident occurred in the court building involving the appellant, his brother, the court clerk, a traffic examiner (Miss Farr) and a journalist. Complaints about intimidating and abusive conduct led the Traffic Commissioner (Mrs Bell) to hold a public inquiry on 26 November 2001 and to decide that the appellant had lost his good repute. The Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence effective 31 December 2001.

Procedural posture and relief sought:

• The appellant appealed the Traffic Commissioner’s decision to the Transport Tribunal (notice given 14 December 2001). The Tribunal upheld the Traffic Commissioner’s decision on the merits but delayed implementation of revocation for three months to enable a fresh licence application. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal (notice given 11 June 2002), attacking the legal approach to the meaning of 'good repute' and contending that the decision was disproportionate and legally flawed.

Issues framed by the Court:

• Whether post-inquiry intimidating and abusive behaviour could properly be regarded as depriving an operator of good repute under section 27 and schedule 3 of the 1995 Act.
• Whether the Traffic Commissioner and the Transport Tribunal gave proper weight to the need for proportionality, including respect for the licence as a possession under Article 1 of the First Protocol and the Human Rights Act 1998 obligations on public authorities.

Reasoning and disposition:

• The court reviewed the statutory scheme (section 27 and schedule 3) and relevant Convention principles (Article 1 of the First Protocol), noting authority that revocation may pursue a legitimate aim but must be proportionate (citing Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden and Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden). The court observed that schedule 3 permits a traffic commissioner to regard any matter relevant to fitness but that the consequence of revocation requires a proper proportionality-focused approach.
• The Traffic Commissioner had expressly asked whether the conduct related to fitness but thereafter focussed on the unacceptability of the behaviour and treated loss of repute as necessarily entailing revocation without sufficiently weighing proportionality or the appellant's subsequent apology and conduct by the time of decision. The Transport Tribunal failed to identify this legal error and accepted the Commissioner's approach as harsh but not plainly wrong.
• The Court of Appeal concluded the Traffic Commissioner's approach faltered in law and that the Tribunal should have recognised the error. The appeal was allowed and the decisions below set aside; there was no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that although conduct after a public inquiry can be material to fitness to hold an operator's licence, the Traffic Commissioner had failed to give proper weight to proportionality and to the relationship between the finding and the sanction under section 27 and schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The Transport Tribunal did not identify that legal error. The decisions of the Traffic Commissioner and the Tribunal were set aside; no costs order was made.

The Traffic Commissioner for the North Western Traffic Area revoked the appellant's licence on 26 November 2001. The appellant appealed to the Transport Tribunal (notice 14 December 2001); the Tribunal upheld the revocation (hearing reported in the judgment) but delayed implementation for three months to permit a fresh licence application. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal (notice 11 June 2002). The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on 31 January 2003 ([2003] EWCA Civ 64) and set aside the decisions below. Prior to these events there had been an earlier appeal against a Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision which was successful on 13 December 2001 (as set out in the judgment).