Derrymorgan Transport Ltd v Driver and Vehicle Agency

A vehicle may be detained where there is reason to believe that it has been used contrary to the operator-licensing requirement. The exemption for international carriage by a haulier established in a member state depends upon the haulier’s actual establishment and operation, not merely foreign registration or inclusion on a foreign Community Licence.

An applicant seeking return of a detained vehicle must prove lawful ownership on the balance of probabilities and then establish a statutory ground for release. In civil regulatory proceedings, a decision-maker may draw an appropriate inference from a party’s silence where the relevant facts are likely to be within that party’s knowledge.

Derrymorgan Transport Ltd, a Bulgarian-registered company holding a Bulgarian Community Licence, appealed against the Department for Infrastructure’s refusal to return a detained lorry and its order that it be disposed of.

The evidence showed that the vehicle, although Bulgarian-registered, was operated in Northern Ireland and Ireland by persons and businesses connected with Northern Ireland. The appellant did not dispute the underlying facts. It contended that the international-carriage exemption applied, that it owned the vehicle, and that the first-instance procedure was unfair because its director had not given evidence.

The central issues were whether the vehicle was lawfully detained under Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010, whether the appellant proved ownership, and whether the decision-making process was fair.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal’s function was to review the material before the Department for Infrastructure. The appellant had to show that the reasoning and application of law required a different view, commonly expressed as showing that the decision was plainly wrong.

2. The exemption reflected in section 1(2)(d) and section 1(2A) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 could assist only a haulier actually established in a member state. The undisputed evidence showed that this vehicle was operated from Northern Ireland, by Northern Ireland-based operators, and only within Northern Ireland, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Its Bulgarian registration and appearance on a Bulgarian Community Licence did not displace that conclusion. As it was not specified on a Northern Ireland operator’s licence, its use contravened section 1 and detention under regulation 3 of the Goods Vehicle (Enforcement Powers) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 was lawful.

3. The appellant also failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it was the lawful owner. The evidence was consistent with control by Northern Ireland-based persons or entities and did not establish that the Bulgarian company owned the vehicle. Since only an owner could obtain return and the statutory release conditions were not met, the application was bound to fail.

4. There was no procedural unfairness. The director could elect not to give evidence, but the Presiding Officer could draw appropriate inferences from that silence concerning matters within his knowledge. In any event, the uncontradicted evidence independently justified the result. The Presiding Officer had not acted unfairly by considering matters relevant to whether the purported Bulgarian operation was genuine.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal in [2023] UKUT 37 (AAC) and upheld the refusal to return the vehicle.
• Department for Infrastructure, Transport Regulation Unit: on 28 November 2021, refused the appellant’s application for return under the Goods Vehicle (Enforcement Powers) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 and ordered disposal of the vehicle.