NI Truck Rentals Ltd v Head of the Transport Regulation Unit

An appeal against a vehicle-impounding decision is a review of the material before the original decision-maker, supplemented where appropriate by the Tribunal’s inquisitorial examination of relevant issues. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the decision was plainly wrong.

In an application for return of a detained vehicle, oral evidence may constitute material evidence of ownership and does not require corroboration. Documentary substantiation may assist but is not essential. The Tribunal may explore evidential issues which the parties have not adequately addressed.

Where a vehicle was used without the required operator’s licence, a mistaken belief that an appeal was pending will not establish the statutory ground based on lack of knowledge where the operator had been clearly warned of the licence revocation and had not secured an appeal or stay.

NI Truck Rentals Ltd appealed against the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit’s refusal to return a detained tractor unit and trailer. The vehicle had been detained after the company’s operator’s licence had been revoked with immediate effect.

The Head of the TRU found that the company had not proved ownership and had not shown that it lacked knowledge of the unlawful use. He therefore refused return and permitted disposal of the vehicle.

The appeal concerned ownership, the Department’s power to detain, and whether any ground for return under regulation 4(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 had been established.

1. Appeal partly allowed. The Department had sufficient evidence to give the authorised officer reason to believe that the vehicle was being used in contravention of section 1 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010. The detention was therefore lawful.
2. The Appellant had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that it was the owner of the vehicle. Mr Hughes’s oral evidence was material evidence. It could be accepted without corroboration. Documentary evidence was useful but not necessary. The Head of the TRU’s contrary finding was plainly wrong.
3. Tribunal proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. The Tribunal may investigate issues and evidential matters which have not been sufficiently explored by the parties or raised in the appeal.
4. None of the grounds for return in regulation 4(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 was established. In particular, the Appellant had not shown that it did not know that the vehicle was being used unlawfully. The clear warning accompanying the immediate revocation of the licence should have alerted the operator to the consequences for future operation.
5. A purported appeal had not been received, was out of time, and was accompanied by neither a stay nor a decision permitting continued operation. The mistaken belief that an appeal was pending therefore did not satisfy regulation 4(3)(c). The finding on that issue was not plainly wrong and was confirmed. The vehicle could consequently be disposed of.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit’s decision dated 1 December 2021. The appeal was allowed in part. The ownership finding was set aside, but the refusal to return the vehicle and permission for disposal were confirmed.