David Donald

An appellate tribunal reviewing a Traffic Commissioner’s decision must determine questions of fact and law on the material before the Commissioner, without conducting a full rehearing. The appellant must show that the reasoning process or application of the law requires a different outcome.

A finding that a transport manager has lost good repute must be proportionate. Significant maintenance failures, inadequate management and a belated resignation may justify that finding. Disqualification following loss of repute is mandatory, and an indefinite period may be justified where the decision provides a realistic route back to the industry. Requiring a former transport manager to retake the CPC examination may be an appropriate rehabilitative measure where the qualification is old and professional development has been absent.

The appellant challenged a Traffic Commissioner’s decision following a public inquiry into serious vehicle-maintenance failures. The Commissioner found that the appellant had failed to exercise continuous and effective management as transport manager, concluded that he had lost good repute, disqualified him for an indefinite period, and required him to retake the CPC examination before returning to the industry.

The appellant principally sought refresher training instead of a further examination. The Upper Tribunal also considered, in fairness, whether the findings of loss of repute and the indefinite disqualification were justified. The central issue was whether the Commissioner’s reasoning and application of the relevant law required a different decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal had full jurisdiction under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985, but its function was not to conduct a complete rehearing. Applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, the appellant had to show that the Commissioner’s reasoning or application of the law required a different view.
2. The Commissioner had a proper basis for finding loss of good repute. The appellant accepted the principal failures and did not dispute the maintenance report. A transport manager who cannot secure compliance from an operator should resign and notify the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. Remaining in post while failing to attend the operating centre for two months amounted to dereliction of duty.
3. The finding of loss of repute was proportionate. Although the Commissioner did not expressly address the appellant’s previous good record, the recent and serious failings were sufficient to show that this omission would not have affected the outcome.
4. Disqualification following loss of repute was mandatory. An indefinite disqualification was justified by the seriousness of the failures. The decision also left a potential route back to the industry through the CPC requirement, so the absence of a fuller explanation for choosing an indefinite period did not make the decision plainly wrong.
5. Requiring the appellant to retake and pass the CPC examination was fair and appropriate. He had obtained the qualification in 1997, had undertaken no professional development or refresher training, and accepted that he had not kept pace with modern industry developments. The Commissioner was not plainly wrong to prefer examination to refresher training.

The appeal was dismissed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 13 January 2022.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England Traffic Area: found loss of good repute, imposed indefinite disqualification from acting as a transport manager, and required the appellant to retake and pass the CPC examination.