Charles Moyo v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

An appellate tribunal reviews the Traffic Commissioner’s decision on the evidence available below. It does not conduct a fresh first-instance hearing. The appellant must show that the Commissioner’s reasoning or application of the law requires a different result. Fresh evidence is admitted only where the applicable criteria are satisfied. A vehicle logbook is not, by itself, evidence of ownership, particularly where it post-dates impounding. Sparse evidence unsupported by ordinary commercial documentation may justify a finding that ownership has not been established.

The appellant claimed to own a heavy goods vehicle impounded by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The Traffic Commissioner refused its release, finding that the appellant had not proved ownership at the date of impounding. The appellant appealed under section 37 of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995.

Before the Upper Tribunal, he sought to introduce oral evidence from a further witness. The central issues were whether fresh evidence should be admitted and whether the Traffic Commissioner had erred in finding that ownership was unproved.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 37 of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995, the Upper Tribunal may determine matters of fact and law, but its function is to review the Traffic Commissioner’s decision rather than rehear the case as a new first-instance hearing. Under Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, the appellant must show that the reasoning process or application of the relevant law requires a different conclusion.

2. Fresh evidence was refused. The criteria in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 apply with essentially full rigour in traffic cases, as explained in W Martin Oliver Partnership [2016] UKUT 70 (AAC). The proposed witness could not materially assist on the pivotal issue of ownership. There was no corroboration of the witness’s illness, no adequate explanation for the failure to provide written evidence, and no evidence of an application for an adjournment.

3. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to find that ownership had not been proved. The V5 certificate showed acquisition after the vehicle had been impounded and was not, in any event, proof of ownership. The payments relied upon were unsupported by an invoice, bill of sale, receipt or other contemporaneous documentation. The calibration certificate did not assist. On the evidence available, the finding that ownership had not been established was inevitable, or at least not plainly wrong, and no error of law was apparent.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: Application for release of the impounded vehicle refused on 13 May 2022 because ownership had not been established.