Toland Plant Ltd v Driver and Vehicle Agency

[2023] UKUT 126 (AAC)

Case details

Case citations
[2023] UKUT 126 (AAC)
Court
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
Judgment date
31 May 2023
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Transport regulation Vehicle detention and impounding
Keywords
goods vehicle operator’s licence vehicle detention impounding proof of ownership fresh evidence annual roadworthiness testing Ladd v Marshall plainly wrong
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An appeal against a vehicle-detention decision is a review, not a rehearing. The appellant must show that the decision was plainly wrong, or that the reasoning and application of the law require a different view. Fresh evidence is admitted only exceptionally, applying the Ladd v Marshall criteria.

For detention purposes, the enforcement authority must establish on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was being used in contravention of section 1 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010. The person seeking return must then prove ownership and establish a statutory ground for return. A journey returning goods vehicles from testing arrangements to the operator’s business premises may be use in connection with that business and therefore require an operator’s licence.

Factual background

The appellant appealed against the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit’s decision of 23 August 2022 refusing return of a goods vehicle and trailer detained by the Driver and Vehicle Agency. The detention followed a roadside stop during which the vehicle and trailer were being taken from premises where preparation and annual roadworthiness testing had occurred to the appellant’s business premises in County Donegal.

The appellant challenged the findings on ownership, the alleged exemption for journeys to or from testing, and whether the vehicle was being used for or in connection with a trade or business. It also sought to adduce a later copy invoice to prove ownership of the trailer. The central issues were the proper appellate approach, admission of fresh evidence, ownership, lawful detention and entitlement to return.

Held

  1. Appeal dismissed. The stay was concluded with immediate effect. The vehicle and trailer were to be disposed of.
  2. The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on an appeal of this kind is supervisory and appellate rather than de novo. It reviews the material before the Head of the TRU and the decision based on that material. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the decision was plainly wrong or that the reasoning and application of the relevant law require a different view, applying Fergal Hughes v DOENI & Perry McKee Homes Ltd v DOENI and Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport.
  3. Fresh evidence may be admitted at the Tribunal’s discretion, but only exceptionally. The evidence must be admissible, unavailable with reasonable diligence for use below, potentially influential on the result, and apparently credible, applying Ladd v Marshall. The later copy invoice was relevant and apparently credible, but could have been produced earlier, was unsupported by an explanation for its lateness, and did not prove transfer of ownership from Jimmy Toland to the appellant company. It was therefore excluded.
  4. Ownership of the trailer was not established on the balance of probabilities. The evidence identified three possible legal owners, included an invoice apparently showing an unpaid balance, and did not demonstrate transfer to the appellant. The Head of the TRU was not plainly wrong in refusing to find ownership proved.
  5. The testing exemption did not apply. The journey occurred nine days after testing and neither its start nor end point was the testing centre. Although this ground was withdrawn, the Tribunal agreed that the Head of the TRU’s reasoning was correct.
  6. The vehicle and trailer were being used on a road for or in connection with the appellant’s trade or business. They were being returned to the business premises after preparation and testing and were used in the appellant’s plant-equipment and transport business. In the absence of an operator’s licence, their use contravened section 1 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010, making detention lawful.
  7. As no ground for return was established, the refusal of return and order for disposal were lawful and fair.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) [2023] UKUT 126 (AAC): appeal dismissed; stay concluded with immediate effect; vehicle and trailer to be disposed of.
  • Head of the Transport Regulation Unit on behalf of the Department for Infrastructure, Northern Ireland: decision dated 23 August 2022 refusing return of the detained vehicle and trailer and ordering their disposal.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.