Pawel Damian Kaptur & Anor

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the Upper Tribunal will intervene only where the appellant shows that the reasoning or application of the law requires a different view. In essence, the Commissioner’s decision must be plainly wrong.

A proposed transport manager must satisfy the statutory requirement of good repute. A Traffic Commissioner may require reliable evidence from the competent foreign judicial or administrative authority. A previous employer’s reference and evidence of no criminal convictions did not satisfy a request for a certificate of good repute or equivalent official document. In the absence of the requested evidence, refusal of the operator’s licence was inevitable.

The appellants applied for a standard goods vehicle operator’s licence for one vehicle and trailer. Mr Kaptur was nominated as transport manager and held a Polish certificate of professional competence.

The Office of the Traffic Commissioner requested a certificate of good repute, or equivalent document, from a competent Polish judicial or administrative authority. The appellants instead supplied a testimonial from a former employer. After refusal, Mr Kaptur also produced evidence that he had no criminal record.

The Traffic Commissioner refused the application because he was not satisfied that the nominated transport manager met the good-repute requirement in Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, section 13A(3)(a). The central issue was whether that decision involved an error of fact or law which made it plainly wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. Although paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 gives the Upper Tribunal full jurisdiction on fact and law, its appellate task is to review the material before the Traffic Commissioner. It will allow an appeal only where the reasoning and application of the relevant law require it to take a different view. That is, in substance, the plainly-wrong standard explained in Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 and Clarke v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd [1919] UKHL 303.

2. Section 13A(3)(a) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 requires the Traffic Commissioner to be satisfied that the proposed transport manager is of good repute. The Commissioner was entitled to make enquiries and require documentation establishing that requirement before granting a licence.

3. The testimonial from a former employer and the later official evidence of no criminal convictions were not the certificate of good repute, or equivalent official document, requested from a competent Polish authority. The appellants had therefore not supplied the evidence required to establish the transport manager’s good repute.

4. The Traffic Commissioner was bound to apply the statutory requirement. On the material before him, refusal was inevitable. The Upper Tribunal identified no error of fact or law and could not conclude that the decision was plainly wrong. It noted that a fresh application could be made if the appropriate Polish documentation were obtained.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of the operator’s licence application: [2022] UKUT 194 (AAC).
• Traffic Commissioner for the East of England Traffic Area: refused the application by letter dated 23 November 2021 because the nominated transport manager’s good repute had not been established.