REL Haulage Limited

A traffic commissioner considering an operator’s licence application must give fair and sufficiently clear notice of the concerns to be examined at a public inquiry. A call-up letter need not plead every issue, but it must adequately signal material concerns already identified so that relevant evidence can be obtained and presented.

Good repute is directed principally to whether the operator can be trusted to comply with the operator-licensing regime. A commissioner may investigate the controlling mind of a corporate applicant and, where justified, consider relevant conduct of individuals connected with it. The corporate veil is not an absolute bar, but clear factual findings and adequate reasons are required. Material procedural unfairness requires the decision to be set aside and the application remitted for reconsideration.

REL Haulage Limited appealed against a Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 7 January 2022 refusing its application for a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence. The application contemplated taking over profitable haulage activities associated with other companies. The Commissioner relied substantially on the business histories of individuals connected with the applicant and concluded that the company was not of good repute.

The appellant argued that the concerns had not been adequately identified before the public inquiry, that the factual findings were wrong, and that the Commissioner had impermissibly pierced the corporate veil. Fresh evidence concerning the relevant business histories and model was admitted. The central issues were whether the proceedings were fair and how the statutory good-repute requirement applied to a corporate applicant.

1. Appeal allowed. The Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of the operator’s licence was set aside. The application was remitted to a public inquiry before a different Traffic Commissioner.
2. A call-up letter primarily alerts an operator to the concerns which may be examined, the evidence which may be relevant, and the issues likely to arise. It is not equivalent to a pleading and need not specify every matter which may emerge. Nevertheless, fairness may require a clearer signal where the Commissioner has already identified a material concern.
3. Here, the documentation did not sufficiently indicate that the repute of the applicant company was being questioned because of the business practices and histories of particular individuals. The case summary and inquiry brief did not cure that deficiency. The appellant therefore lacked a proper opportunity to provide evidence addressing concerns which materially influenced the decision.
4. The unfairness was material. The fresh evidence could have affected the findings concerning the connected individuals, the business model and the company’s repute. It was unnecessary to determine the challenge to every factual finding.
5. The statutory concept of good repute is not a licence for general moral disapproval of a business model. The relevant question is whether the operator can be trusted to comply with the applicable licensing regime. The Commissioner was nevertheless entitled, where justified, to investigate who controlled the company and to consider relevant conduct falling within the statutory framework.
6. The provisions concerning information from “relevant persons” did not prevent the Commissioner from considering material from other sources or investigating the controlling mind of a corporate applicant. The authorities concerning corporate personality remained applicable, but they did not establish an absolute prohibition on inquiry into control or on piercing the veil where wrongdoing or impropriety justified it. The original conclusion was inadequately reasoned and lacked sufficiently clear factual findings.
7. The fresh inquiry was to consider, among other matters, the relevance of the business practices to good repute, the likelihood of compliance with the statutory regime, and the identity of any controlling mind. Mr Scott and Mr Lewis would be able to give evidence and the application would be determined on a fuller evidential basis.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal, set aside the Traffic Commissioner’s decision, and remitted the licence application for reconsideration at a public inquiry before a different Traffic Commissioner.
• Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands Traffic Area: refused the application for a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence on 7 January 2022.