Leafy Designs Ltd

An appellate tribunal must decide an operator-licensing appeal on the material before the Traffic Commissioner and interfere only for a material error of law or a plainly wrong decision. Dishonesty may have degrees, and its substance, nature and degree ordinarily require evaluation before regulatory action is chosen. That evaluation need not be lengthy where the facts are straightforward. Rigid categories or hierarchies of dishonesty should be avoided. Revocation and disqualification were not disproportionate where serious regulatory dishonesty and substantial compliance failures had been established.

Leafy Designs Ltd and its directors appealed against the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s decisions following a public inquiry. The Operator’s standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence was revoked. The Operator was disqualified for two years, Mr Umarji for two years and Mr Patel for one year.

The appeal challenged the weight given to a copied transport manager’s signature, the characterisation of the conduct as serious dishonesty, the treatment of subsequent compliance improvements and the proportionality of the regulatory action. The Upper Tribunal considered the appellate standard, the evaluation required where dishonesty is relied upon and whether the decisions were plainly wrong or disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985, the Upper Tribunal may determine matters of fact and law, but it does not conduct a new first-instance hearing. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the Traffic Commissioner’s reasoning and application of the law require a different result.
2. The Traffic Commissioner properly considered the serious maintenance and safety shortcomings identified by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. He also considered the improvements made between the two public inquiry hearings, but was entitled to conclude that the Operator had failed to achieve sufficient compliance despite the lengthy opportunity available.
3. There are degrees of dishonesty. Ordinarily, the decision-maker must evaluate its substance, nature and degree before deciding upon regulatory action. The evaluation may be brief where the circumstances are straightforward. It is unnecessary and potentially over-prescriptive to create a fixed hierarchy of dishonest conduct.
4. The arrangement by which Mr Singh was nominated as transport manager, while Mr Lynch effectively performed the role without the requisite qualification for international operations, was properly found to be a sham device. It created the false appearance that an important licensing requirement was being met. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to treat that conduct as serious dishonesty.
5. The copied signature placed on documents sent to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency was properly found to be dishonest and intended to mislead. It created the impression that an appropriately qualified transport manager had certified the contents. The absence of false information in the substantive contents did not remove the dishonesty.
6. In light of the maintenance failings and dishonesty, and the Traffic Commissioner’s balancing exercise, revocation and disqualification were not disproportionate. The stay ended and the decisions took effect from 23:59 on 14 June 2023, allowing 30 days for the winding up of the business.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s written reasons dated 14 February 2023 dismissed; the regulatory decisions were upheld and took effect from 23:59 on 14 June 2023.