Oakridge Agri Ltd v The Head of the Transport Regulation Unit

On an appeal concerning an operator’s licence, the Upper Tribunal conducts a review rather than a complete rehearing. The appellant must show that the reasoning and application of the relevant law require a different view.

A refusal founded on an asserted failure to supply information or documents is wrong where the contemporaneous responses provide complete and acceptable answers, or show that any remaining matters are readily resolvable. The decision-maker must accurately engage with those responses. Where the relevant licensing requirements are satisfied, the appropriate course may be remittal for prompt redetermination, with a suitable training undertaking if required.

Oakridge Agri Ltd appealed against the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit’s decision of 4 January 2021 refusing its application for a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence.

The refusal relied on asserted omissions in documentation and information, including the transport manager’s declaration and certificate, refresher training, the relationship with another operator, and the proposed operating centre. The appellant contended that its emails had addressed those matters and supplied further material on appeal.

The central issue was whether the refusal correctly treated the application as incomplete and the relevant licensing requirements as unsatisfied under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal held that the Head of the TRU’s refusal was wrong. It remitted the licence application to the Head of the TRU for redetermination, expecting that it would be granted.

2. Following the appellate approach described in Fergal Hughes v DOENI & Perry McKee Homes Ltd v DOENI, the Tribunal reviewed the material before the original decision-maker rather than conducting a wholly fresh hearing. The appellant had shown that the reasoning and application of the law required a different conclusion.

3. The general assertions in the refusal notice that information and documentation had not been supplied, and that no explanation had been given, were misleading. The appellant had responded promptly to requests and had provided complete and acceptable explanations for the concerns identified by the Department.

4. The operating-centre concerns were satisfactorily answered. The issues concerning the transport manager’s CPC certificate and signed declaration were readily resolvable. The explanation of the relationship and division of work between the two businesses was satisfactory. The appellant was also willing to undertake transport-manager-specific refresher training.

5. The Tribunal therefore accepted that the relevant statutory requirements had been satisfied. It directed a priority redetermination and considered that, in addition to the usual standard-national-licence undertakings, an undertaking to attend a transport-manager-specific CPC refresher course was appropriate.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal from the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit and remitted the application for redetermination.
• Head of the Transport Regulation Unit: refused the standard national operator’s licence application on 4 January 2021 under provisions of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010.