Slemish Group Ltd v Head of the Transport Regulation Unit

A standard goods-vehicle operator’s licence carries continuing requirements. An operator must retain an effective and stable establishment, including having a vehicle at its disposal as required by Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, and must demonstrate continuing financial standing when properly required to do so.

On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing that the decision-maker’s reasoning or application of the law requires the Upper Tribunal to take a different view. A revocation decision will stand where the evidence before the Department established non-compliance and the appellant did not provide the requested financial evidence. A pending application to surrender the licence does not, in itself, make revocation wrong.

The appellant held a standard international goods-vehicle operator’s licence authorising three vehicles. During a continuation-checklist process, it confirmed that it had no vehicle specified on the licence and had not operated one since May 2020.

After the Department proposed revocation, the appellant specified a vehicle. Departmental records indicated that it was recorded as off the road and had no current MoT. The appellant also failed to answer a request for financial evidence. It applied to surrender the licence before the Department revoked it on 20 January 2022.

The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal, contending that revocation was harsh and that its surrender application should instead have been accepted. The central issue was whether the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit’s revocation decision was plainly wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had not shown that the Department’s reasoning or application of the relevant law required the Upper Tribunal to reach a different view. On the material before it, the Department could not properly have reached a decision other than revocation.

2. The Tribunal applied the review approach stated in Fergal Hughes v DOENI & Perry McKee Homes Ltd v DOENI, [2013] UKUT 618 AAC, informed by Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport, [2010] EWCA Civ. 695. The appeal was not a complete rehearing. The appellant bore the burden of demonstrating that the decision was wrong, commonly expressed as showing that it was “plainly wrong”.

3. The Department correctly applied the continuing licensing requirements. The appellant had no specified operational vehicle for a prolonged period. Its later specified vehicle appeared to be recorded as SORN and without a valid MoT. Those facts supported the conclusion that it no longer met the effective-and-stable-establishment requirement in section 12A(2)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010, read with Article 5(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009.

4. The appellant also failed to respond to the request for evidence that it met the financial-standing requirement. That failure independently reinforced the correctness of the regulatory action. The Tribunal followed the continuing-obligations analysis in Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI.

5. The Tribunal added, without affecting the outcome, that the Department could have engaged more positively with the appellant’s earlier application to surrender the licence. That observation did not render the revocation decision plainly wrong.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal in [2023] UKUT 29 (AAC).
• Head of the Transport Regulation Unit: revoked the appellant’s operator’s licence with immediate effect on 20 January 2022 under sections 23 and 24 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010.