Christopher Dagnall

An appellate tribunal reviewing a Traffic Commissioner’s licensing decision decides questions of law and fact on the material that was before the Commissioner. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the reasoning or legal application requires a different conclusion.

Evidence of financial standing must be sufficiently clear and cover a meaningful continuous period. An illegible statement, or a mere snapshot of funds, cannot establish the required available financial resources. Events and evidence arising after the decision cannot normally cure the defect; fresh evidence must satisfy the Ladd v Marshall requirements.

The appellant, a sole trader, appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal on 9 June 2022 of his application for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence.

He sought authority for two vehicles and nominated his brother as transport manager. The financial documents supplied to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner were found to be illegible. The documents supplied for the proposed transport manager did not establish the required qualification or an acquired-rights exemption. An exemption was granted after the decision.

The central issues were whether the Commissioner’s refusal was wrong on the material then available and whether later evidence or circumstances could be considered on appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The panel applied the appellate approach explained in Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695. Although the Upper Tribunal has full jurisdiction over law and fact, it does not conduct a new first-instance hearing. It decides on the material before the Traffic Commissioner, without the benefit of hearing witnesses, and the appellant must show that the decision was wrong.

2. The financial-standing requirement under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operator’s) Act 1995 required clear evidence of available resources. The appellant’s original evidence covered only nine days. The later documents sent before the decision were too small to read, despite the Office of the Traffic Commissioner having identified that problem. The Commissioner was therefore entitled to attach no weight to them. Legible evidence before the Commissioner amounted only to a snapshot and could not establish appropriate financial standing.

3. Any clearer bank statements allegedly supplied after the decision could not assist. Under paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985, post-decision circumstances could not be considered. Further, fresh evidence did not satisfy the requirement in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, since legible statements could readily have been obtained and supplied to the Commissioner with reasonable diligence.

4. The proposed transport manager had not supplied a relevant certificate of professional competence or evidence of an acquired-rights exemption at the decision date. The exemption granted on 13 June 2022 was a post-decision event and could not be considered. This independently required dismissal of the appeal.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of the licence application.

• Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England: refused the application for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence on 9 June 2022.