A Magill v Transport Regulation Unit, Department for Infrastructure

An appeal against revocation of an operator’s licence is a review of the decision-making material before the licensing authority. The appellant must show that the reasoning process and application of the relevant law require a different view; intervention is warranted where the decision is plainly wrong.

A failure to answer one letter does not, without more, establish loss of good repute, particularly where the authority itself delayed substantially in addressing the matter. An inference that an operator continued carrying controlled waste requires evidence capable of supporting that conclusion. Reliance on the absence of amendments to a licence, without corroborating evidence, was insufficient.

The Transport Regulation Unit revoked the appellant’s restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence under section 23(1)(g) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operator’s) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010. It relied on an alleged material change of circumstances, namely loss of good repute arising from the appellant’s failure to engage with the Department and an inference that he continued carrying controlled waste after revocation of his waste-carrier registration.

The appellant had answered an earlier letter concerning waste convictions, but did not respond to later correspondence. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the TRU’s reasoning and evidential conclusions were plainly wrong.

1. Appeal allowed. The Upper Tribunal reviewed the material before the TRU and applied the established appellate approach: the appellant bore the burden of showing that the reasoning process and application of the law required a different view. The shorthand description was whether the decision was plainly wrong.

2. The TRU was plainly wrong to treat the appellant’s failure to answer one later letter as a failure to engage with the Department sufficient to establish loss of good repute. The appellant had responded promptly to the original letter. The TRU then failed to engage with him for more than two years. In those circumstances, treating the later non-response as a fair basis for loss of good repute was disproportionate.

3. The TRU was also plainly wrong to conclude that the appellant continued carrying controlled waste. Its conclusion rested solely on the fact that no changes had been made to the operator’s licence after the waste-carrier registration was revoked. There was no photographic, witness or other evidence supporting continued carriage. The appellant’s remaining vehicle had been declared off the road, and that evidence was not contradicted.

4. The reasons for revocation were therefore fatally flawed, although the Tribunal noted that other grounds under section 23 might have provided stronger grounds for action. The matter was remitted to the TRU for determination at a Public Inquiry.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the TRU decision dated 2 November 2022; appeal allowed and matter remitted for a Public Inquiry.
• Transport Regulation Unit, Department for Infrastructure: operator’s licence revoked under section 23(1)(g) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operator’s) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010.