Interbev Ireland Ltd v The Head of the Transport Regulation Unit

An appeal against a transport-licensing decision is a review, not a complete rehearing. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the decision was wrong and that the reasoning and applicable law require a different view.

Where a variation application required publication of notice, the prescribed wording in Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 was mandatory. A refusal was not plainly wrong where the published advertisement omitted required wording, even though the advertisement had been published within the relevant time limit.

Interbev Ireland Ltd, the holder of a restricted goods-vehicle operator’s licence, applied to increase its authorised vehicles and trailers and to use an operating centre. The Head of the Transport Regulation Unit refused the application.

The Department sent inconsistent explanations. One asserted that the advertisement was published late; another referred to a future site assessment; and a later letter identified omitted mandatory wording in the advertisement. The appellant appealed, maintaining that it had supplied the requested material in time.

The Upper Tribunal considered the publication requirements in section 17 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, and whether the refusal was plainly wrong on appellate review.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal held that the appellant had not shown that the refusal was plainly wrong.

2. The appeal was a review of the material before the Head of the TRU, rather than a rehearing. The appellant bore the burden of showing that the decision was wrong and that the reasoning and application of the relevant law required the Tribunal to take a different view.

3. The evidence ultimately established that the newspaper edition containing the notice was dated 9 December 2021, within the deadline identified by the Department. If late publication had been the principal basis for refusal, the appeal would have succeeded.

4. However, the Department confirmed that the actual basis of refusal was a defect in the advertisement’s contents. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 required the notice to contain the prescribed wording. Its use of “shall contain” made that wording mandatory. The advertisement omitted part of it, and the appellant could not establish that the wording used was compliant. The refusal under section 17 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 was therefore not plainly wrong.

5. The Tribunal observed, without altering the result, that the decision was technical and punitive. It considered that the Department could and should have engaged with the appellant about the narrow requirement and explained how to comply. The appellant remained free to make a further variation application.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal in [2022] UKUT 348 (AAC).
• Head of the Transport Regulation Unit: refused the application for variation of the restricted operator’s licence on 28 February 2022.