LKW Trans Ltd

Where revocation of an operator’s licence is at stake, a traffic commissioner must conduct the public inquiry fairly and give the operator a proper opportunity to address material concerns and provide explanations or further evidence. Proceeding in the operator’s absence may amount to a material denial of natural justice where the absence and its reasons were communicated, or where the commissioner’s factual assumptions about engagement with the inquiry are mistaken.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal may determine questions of fact and law, but an appellant must show objective grounds demonstrating that the decision-making process or application of the law requires a different conclusion. A revocation decision based on inaccurate facts, unreasonable conclusions and an unfair procedure may be quashed and remitted.

LKW Trans Ltd appealed against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 31 August 2022 revoking its standard national operator’s licence under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The revocation followed a reconvened public inquiry concerning the employment status of the company’s drivers. The inquiry proceeded in the absence of the company’s director, who was in Romania caring for his injured son. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner concluded that the company had failed to provide satisfactory evidence of regularised driver employment and had failed to engage with the inquiry.

The central issue was whether, in the circumstances, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner acted fairly and lawfully in proceeding with the inquiry and revoking the licence without giving the company a further opportunity to attend and explain its evidence.

Appeal allowed; revocation decision quashed; case remitted.

1. The Upper Tribunal admitted fresh evidence under the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489. The evidence could not reasonably have been obtained for use at the inquiry because the appellant had no notice that the chronology of communications was disputed. It was capable of materially affecting the result and was apparently credible.
2. The admitted evidence established that the company’s director had contacted the Office of the Traffic Commissioner before the reconvened inquiry was listed and again before its hearing date. He had explained that he was in Romania and would not return until after the listed inquiry. The chronology available to the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was therefore incomplete and inaccurate.
3. Although the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was entitled to be concerned about the evidence of driver employment, he should have canvassed whether an adjournment was sought when the director’s absence became known. Given that revocation was at stake and that the inquiry had been convened to address the evidential concerns, fairness required a further opportunity to attend, explain the documents and answer questions.
4. The findings that the company had assumed the inquiry would not proceed, had failed to engage with it and had travelled abroad knowing that an inquiry was imminent were unreasonable on the correct facts. The absence may materially have affected the outcome, because the Deputy Traffic Commissioner intended to question the operator and seek further evidence.
5. The decision was therefore plainly wrong. It was premised on inaccurate facts and unreasonable conclusions, and the company had been denied natural justice. The revocation was quashed and the matter remitted for a reconvened public inquiry before a different Traffic Commissioner.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): the appeal against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 31 August 2022 was allowed. The revocation decision was quashed and the matter remitted for a reconvened public inquiry before a different Traffic Commissioner.
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the East of England Traffic Area: revoked the appellant’s operator’s licence under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 after proceeding with the reconvened inquiry in the appellant’s absence.