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

When deciding whether an individual operator has lost the good repute required by Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, a traffic commissioner must focus on matters relevant to fitness to hold a licence. The commissioner must recognise that revocation follows inevitably from a finding of lost repute.

An operator’s licence is a possession protected by article 1 of the First Protocol. There must therefore be a proportionate relationship between the finding of lost repute and mandatory revocation. Serious misconduct may justify inquiry, but its unacceptability does not itself establish loss of repute. The commissioner must assess the operator’s fitness at the date of decision and give proper weight to subsequent apologies or other evidence of restored repute.

The Traffic Commissioner revoked the appellant road haulage operator’s licence after finding that threatening and intimidating conduct following an earlier public inquiry showed that he was no longer of good repute. Although the appellant had apologised to the principal target of his conduct and again at the later inquiry, the Commissioner considered that he had not adequately recognised its gravity.

The Transport Tribunal dismissed his appeal. It held that the Commissioner’s decision, although potentially harsh, was not plainly wrong. The operator appealed under paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985.

The central issue was whether the Commissioner and Tribunal had properly applied section 27(1) and Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, having regard to the mandatory consequence of revocation and the protection of the licence as a possession under article 1 of the First Protocol.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Kennedy, with whom Lord Justice Mantell and Lord Justice Mance agreed, held that the Traffic Commissioner had committed an error of law. The decisions of both the Commissioner and the Transport Tribunal were set aside.

2. An operator’s licence was a possession for the purposes of article 1 of the First Protocol. Its revocation could pursue a legitimate public aim, and the state enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation. The interference nevertheless had to be proportionate: Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden [1989] 13 EHRR 309 applied.

3. Section 27(1) and Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 contained no definition of good repute. Although paragraph 1(1) allowed consideration of “any matter” concerning an individual, Parliament could not have intended reliance on immaterial evidence. The Commissioner had to focus on matters relevant to the individual’s fitness to hold a licence.

4. A finding that an operator had lost good repute inevitably required revocation. That consequence had a direct bearing on whether the statutory condition was established. There had to be a proportionate relationship between the finding and the sanction. Express reference to proportionality or Convention law was unnecessary if the domestic legislation was approached correctly.

5. The Commissioner initially asked whether the conduct related to fitness to hold a licence, but then concentrated upon the conduct’s unacceptability. She did not give mature consideration to whether it truly demonstrated lost repute when assessed alongside the inevitable revocation. Her statement that the case was “all or nothing” disclosed a failure to appreciate proportionality’s relevance.

6. The Commissioner also failed properly to consider whether the operator’s written apology to the principal target and his further apology at the later inquiry showed that, by the date of decision, he had regained good repute. The Tribunal’s recognition that the decision appeared harsh did not cure the defective approach. There was no order as to costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the operator’s appeal unanimously and set aside the decisions of the Transport Tribunal and Traffic Commissioner.
2. Transport Tribunal: Dismissed the operator’s appeal, holding that the Commissioner’s decision, though potentially harsh, was not plainly wrong. It delayed revocation for three months to permit a fresh licence application.
3. Traffic Commissioner: Found that the operator remained without good repute and revoked his licence under section 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.