MDT European Ltd

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the Upper Tribunal determines questions of fact and law on the material before the Commissioner, but cannot consider circumstances arising after the decision. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the Commissioner’s reasoning or application of the law requires a different conclusion. Financial standing and professional competence are mandatory requirements for an operator’s licence and must continue throughout the licence’s lifetime. Where the evidence does not establish either requirement, and the Commissioner’s findings on compliance are rational and adequately explained, revocation may be the only rational outcome.

MDT European Ltd appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 10 February 2022, following a public inquiry, to revoke its standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence. The Commissioner had found inadequate evidence of financial standing, no professionally competent transport manager, and serious concerns concerning vehicle maintenance, drivers’ hours and driver management.

The appellant challenged the factual findings, the adequacy of the reasons, and alleged bias. He did not attend the Upper Tribunal hearing. The central issue was whether the Commissioner’s reasoning and application of the statutory requirements required the Upper Tribunal to reach a different decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to show that the Traffic Commissioner’s reasoning or application of the relevant law required a different outcome.
2. Under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, section 13 A(2)(c) and paragraph 6A of Schedule 3, appropriate financial standing is mandatory. Under section 13 A(3) and Schedule 3, professional competence is also mandatory and is linked to the operator’s transport manager. These requirements apply both when a licence is obtained and throughout its lifetime.
3. Financial standing may be demonstrated by various means, but the evidence provided was incomplete and unpersuasive. The Upper Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the material did not establish that the requirement had been met.
4. The same conclusion applied to professional competence. The former transport manager had not performed the role for some time and no alternative appointment had been made.
5. The Commissioner’s remaining findings, principally concerning maintenance, were unsupported by any significant evidence or argument showing that they were unsound or unreasonable. His written reasons were cogent and complete. The allegation of bias had no evidential foundation.
6. The Upper Tribunal applied the approach in Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695: it decided the factual and legal issues on the material before the Commissioner, without the benefit of seeing or hearing witnesses, and required the appellant to demonstrate that a different view was necessary.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 10 February 2022 dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England Traffic Area: following a public inquiry, revoked MDT European Ltd’s standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence.