Andrew Murphy Transport Ltd, Re

On an appeal concerning a detained goods vehicle, the Upper Tribunal reviews the material before the decision-maker and intervenes only where the reasoning and application of law require a different view, commonly described as the decision being plainly wrong.

The claimant must establish lawful ownership on the balance of probabilities before seeking return. A claimant relying on lack of knowledge must provide evidence capable of establishing that lack of knowledge. The inquiry may include actual knowledge, deliberate shutting of one’s eyes, reckless failure to make reasonable inquiries, and circumstances that would have prompted an honest and reasonable person to inquire.

The appeal concerned the refusal by the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit to return a detained tractor unit and trailer. The goods vehicle had been stopped while being used without being authorised on an operator’s licence. The appellant initially acted in the name of the company’s sole director and later amended the appellant to Andrew Murphy Transport Ltd.

The Head of the TRU concluded that the applicant had not established lawful ownership, that the relevant user was Caolan Gormley or CDG Transport Ltd rather than the appellant, and that the lack-of-knowledge ground was not made out. The central issue was whether those conclusions were plainly wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal reviewed the material before the Head of the TRU and asked whether the reasoning and application of the relevant law required a different view. It did not rehear the matter as if it began afresh.
2. Ownership had to be established before a claim for return could succeed. Under Regulation 2 of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, the relevant person had to show that they were the lawful owner at the time of detention. The documents were inconsistent. The Head of the TRU was entitled to conclude that neither Mr Murphy nor the company had proved ownership on the balance of probabilities.
3. For Regulation 4(3)(a), the appellant had to show that the person using the vehicle held a valid licence. The evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Gormley or CDG Transport Ltd was the user. There was insufficient evidence of an employment or agency arrangement under which the company was the user.
4. For Regulation 4(3)(c), the appellant had to establish lack of knowledge that the vehicle was being used in contravention of section 1 of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010. The burden remained on the appellant. The absence of a valid MOT, the vehicle’s intended use in the company’s fleet, and the transport manager’s absence were circumstances capable of alerting the sole director to the possibility that the vehicle had not been added to the licence.
5. The Head of the TRU had balanced the evidence fairly and proportionately, and none of his conclusions was plainly wrong. The vehicle and trailer were not ordered to be returned.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit dated 7 December 2021.
• Head of the Transport Regulation Unit, Department for Infrastructure, Northern Ireland: refused the application for return of the detained vehicle; no application was made for return of the trailer.