Anglorom Trans (UK) Ltd, Re

A company holding a standard operator’s licence must have a transport manager who actually assumes continuous and effective responsibility for its transport operations. Employing a qualified person whom the company has deprived of those functions does not satisfy the professional-competence requirement in Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The transport manager’s good repute is a personal matter. It cannot be impugned solely because the employer excluded him from performing his role. A core failure to have a transport manager makes loss of repute and revocation inevitable, but disqualification requires a separately reasoned and proportionate balancing exercise. The decision must identify why that ultimate sanction is justified for that operator.

Three related haulage companies held standard international operator’s licences. The Traffic Commissioner revoked all their licences after finding that the companies’ nominal transport manager, Mr Briggs, did not control or plan the transport operations of Anglorom and Paramount. Anglorom was also disqualified indefinitely from holding or obtaining a licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The Transport Tribunal allowed Team Kitchens’ appeal but dismissed the appeals of Paramount and Anglorom. Anglorom and Paramount appealed to the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the statutory requirement for a transport manager could be met by shared management in which the appointed manager lacked responsibility, and whether revocation and Anglorom’s disqualification were proportionate.

Disposition

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court upheld the revocation of Paramount’s and Anglorom’s licences. It allowed Anglorom’s appeal against its indefinite disqualification. Jonathan Parker LJ agreed with Laddie J. Pill LJ also agreed.
2. A company must do more than employ a person with the required qualification. Under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, Schedule 3, paragraph 8(2), it must have a transport manager who performs that role for the undertaking. Section 58(1) requires continuous and effective responsibility for managing the transport operations. Mr Briggs had no responsibility for the functions performed by Mr Ballestrieri. There was no joint responsibility merely because both were involved in the business. Anglorom and Paramount therefore had, in substance, no transport manager and lacked the required professional competence.
3. The good repute of a transport manager must be assessed separately from that of the employer. An employer’s decision to prevent the manager from doing his job may affect the company’s licence, but does not itself establish that the manager has lost good repute. On the material before the court, there was no basis to impugn Mr Briggs’ repute. Pill LJ added that, once the absence of a transport manager was found, a separate finding that Mr Briggs lacked good repute under Schedule 3, paragraph 8(2)(b), was unnecessary.
4. Crompton established that a licence is a possession protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that proportionality may affect the assessment of loss of repute. Here, however, failure to meet the core statutory requirement meant that no balancing exercise could avoid loss of repute and revocation. Revocation was in any event proportionate.
5. Disqualification is the ultimate sanction. Applying Bryan Haulage, the court held that the decision-maker had to disclose and assess the material justifying it and demonstrate a proper balancing exercise. Neither decision explained why Anglorom, unlike Paramount, required disqualification or considered its clean record and the absence of evidence of unsafe operation. The disqualification was therefore unjustified. No further extension of the revocation orders was granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2004] EWCA Civ 998, allowed Anglorom’s appeal only against the indefinite disqualification order. It dismissed Paramount’s appeal and upheld the revocation of both companies’ licences.
• Transport Tribunal: On 21 April 2004, allowed Team Kitchens’ appeal but dismissed the appeals of Paramount and Anglorom against revocation. It upheld Anglorom’s disqualification.
• Traffic Commissioner for the Eastern Traffic Area: On 29 October 2003, revoked the licences of all three companies and disqualified Anglorom indefinitely.