SCA Haulage Ltd v Head of the Transport Regulation Unit

An administrative decision-maker conducting a public inquiry must assess all relevant evidence before making the decision. Late submission may be criticised, but it does not justify disregarding relevant material altogether, particularly where there is time to assess it before the decision is issued. The decision-maker must explain why relevant evidence is accepted, rejected or given little weight. Failure to perform that assessment is a procedural irregularity and may render the decision plainly wrong on appeal. An appeal to the Upper Tribunal is a review of the material before the original decision-maker, not a complete rehearing.

The Head of the Transport Regulation Unit revoked the appellant’s standard international operator’s licence and imposed a three-year disqualification after a public inquiry. The appellant had failed to provide requested records within the specified periods, but its representative supplied further evidence electronically shortly before the inquiry. The Head of the TRU declined to consider that material because it was provided too late.

On appeal, the appellant pursued the contention that the failure to consider the evidence was procedurally unfair. The central issue was whether late evidence relevant to the matters under investigation could properly be disregarded without assessment.

1. Appeal allowed. The appeal was a review of the decision-making process and the material before the Head of the TRU. The appellant bore the burden of showing that the decision was wrong and had to demonstrate that the reasoning process and application of the law required a different view. These principles were drawn from Fergal Hughes v DOENI & Perry McKee Homes Ltd v DOENI (NT/2013/52 & 53) and Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport ([2010] EWCA Civ 695).

2. The appellant was at fault in failing to respond promptly to the correspondence of 5 September 2022 and the call-up letter of 3 October 2022. That fault did not remove the decision-maker’s duty to consider relevant evidence ultimately placed before him.

3. The Head of the TRU had a clear duty to undertake a rigorous assessment of all the evidence before him and to explain expressly why relevant evidence was preferred, accepted or rejected. Evidence submitted shortly before a regulatory inquiry may be inconvenient and may justify criticism, but it remains a feature of legal and regulatory proceedings that must be addressed according to its relevance and evidential weight.

4. The further evidence was materially relevant. It had been provided in response to the call-up letter and included a bank statement which, on the Head of the TRU’s own description, showed a healthy bank balance. The Head had nevertheless stated that the financial-standing requirement was satisfied while declining to consider the additional material.

5. Refusing to give any consideration to relevant evidence, without assessing its relevance or weight, was procedurally unfair. It amounted to a procedural irregularity and made the decision plainly wrong. The case was remitted to the Department for reconsideration, with a recommendation that a further public inquiry be held before a different decision-maker.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal allowed against the decision of the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit dated 27 October 2022. The case was remitted to the Department for reconsideration.