KLC Transport Ltd v Head of the Transport Regulation Unit

An operator’s licence revocation cannot stand where a procedural or other irregularity, through no party’s fault, was capable of making a material difference to the outcome or the fairness of the process. A tribunal may accept credible oral evidence that a proposal-to-revoke notice was not received. The operator’s immediate and substantial response upon receiving the revocation decision may strongly corroborate that evidence.

In such circumstances, the proper course is to allow the appeal and remit the matter for reconsideration, with a public inquiry where appropriate. Operators should nevertheless maintain reliable arrangements for receiving regulatory communications, including checking junk-email folders.

The appellant held a standard international goods-vehicle operator’s licence. Following a compliance audit and reports of most serious infringements, the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit proposed revocation by letter dated 26 September 2022. No response or request for a public inquiry was received, and the licence was revoked by a decision dated 13 December 2022.

The appellant appealed. It maintained that neither the posted nor emailed proposal-to-revoke letter had come to its attention. It gave evidence that the postal signature was unknown and that the email had gone to a junk folder. Upon receiving the December correspondence, it responded immediately, supplied material addressing the compliance concerns, and sought a public inquiry.

The central issue was whether the non-receipt of the earlier correspondence amounted to an irregularity capable of affecting the outcome or the fairness of the revocation process.

1. Appeal allowed. The Upper Tribunal accepted the director’s oral evidence that the proposal-to-revoke letter of 26 September 2022 had not been received. Her evidence was honest and credible. It did not require corroboration.

2. The appellant’s immediate response to the revocation correspondence was compelling support for that conclusion. It promptly addressed the substantive concerns, supplied extensive documents and sought a public inquiry. The Tribunal was satisfied that it would have taken the same steps had it received the earlier letter.

3. There was also definitive evidence that another person with the same name was involved in the Northern Ireland transport industry and was dealing with regulatory authorities. That created a real potential for confusion.

4. Without fault by any person, a procedural or other irregularity had occurred. It was capable of making a material difference both to the outcome and to the fairness of the proceedings. The statutory appeal jurisdiction was exercised consistently with the review approach described in Fergal Hughes v DOENI & Perry McKee Homes Ltd v DOENI, NT/2013/52 & 53.

5. The case was remitted to the Department for reconsideration. The Tribunal recommended that a public inquiry be held. It added, as guidance, that operators should check junk-email folders and maintain reliable systems for receiving regulatory correspondence.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration.
• Head of the Transport Regulation Unit: Revoked the appellant’s goods-vehicle operator’s licence by decision dated 13 December 2022.