S&D Haulage Limited

An appellate tribunal reviewing an operator-licensing decision considers the evidence that was before the traffic commissioner. It will not allow an appeal unless there was procedural unfairness, the decision was plainly wrong, or the facts or law otherwise require intervention.

Close financial, operational and management links with an operator under investigation may reasonably support a finding that a new licence application is not independent and may be intended as a front. Those circumstances can justify refusal where the applicant has not established the statutory requirement of repute.

S&D Haulage Limited appealed against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 10 August 2021 refusing its application for a standard international operator’s licence under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The applicant’s sole director was the wife of the director and transport manager of another operator, Trans-Chriss Ltd, which was under DVSA investigation. The companies shared an operating centre; the other operator had advanced £20,000 to the applicant; and the applicant initially nominated its director as transport manager before nominating her brother.

The central issue was whether the Deputy Traffic Commissioner had been procedurally unfair or plainly wrong in treating those links as showing that the proposed operation was likely to be a front and that repute had not been established.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal reviewed the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision on the evidence available when it was made. Later material and explanations that could have been put before the Deputy Traffic Commissioner did not provide a basis for overturning that decision.

2. The Tribunal applied the appellate approach in Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695. There was no procedural unfairness. Nor was the decision plainly wrong, and neither the facts nor the applicable law required the appeal to be allowed.

3. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner was entitled to regard the links with Trans-Chriss Ltd as highly material. They included the timing of the application after notice of the DVSA investigation, the interest-free loan needed to demonstrate financial standing, the initially proposed transport manager, the shared operating centre, and the identical authorisation of ten vehicles.

4. Those matters reasonably gave rise to doubt that the applicant would operate independently of the director of Trans-Chriss Ltd. They also supported the concern that the application was a safety net against regulatory action affecting Trans-Chriss Ltd and was likely to be used as a front. The Tribunal therefore upheld the conclusion that the statutory repute requirement under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 had not been met.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal: [2022] UKUT 82 (AAC).
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the East of England — on 10 August 2021, refused the application for a standard international operator’s licence.