Bulk Tranz Haulage Ltd, Bulgaria v Department for Infrastructure for Northern Ireland

An appeal against a vehicle detention decision is a review of the material before the original decision-maker. The appellant must show that the reasoning and application of the law require a different outcome; intervention is warranted where the decision was plainly wrong. A vehicle used by a Northern Ireland-based operator requires an Northern Ireland operator’s licence unless a statutory or applicable international-haulage exemption is established. Exemptions for EU international haulage and cabotage require proof that their specific conditions are met. An applicant seeking return of detained property must prove ownership on the balance of probabilities and then establish a statutory ground for release.

The appellant challenged the Department for Infrastructure’s refusal to return a Bulgarian-registered vehicle and trailer detained in Northern Ireland. The vehicle had been used on a predominantly United Kingdom journey by a Northern Ireland-based driver, without being listed on an Northern Ireland or Bulgarian operator’s licence. The Department found that the appellant owned the vehicle but had not proved ownership of the trailer, and ordered both to be disposed of.

The appeal concerned the effect of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the statutory exemptions for international haulage and cabotage, the legality of detention, and proof of ownership.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal reviewed the Department’s decision and would intervene only if the reasoning and application of the relevant law required a different view. The shorthand description of that test was whether the decision was plainly wrong, applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 and Clarke v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd [1919] UKHL 303.
2. The facts found below were not disputed and were not affected by an error of law. The vehicle was being used by an operator established in Northern Ireland. Since neither vehicle nor trailer was listed on an Northern Ireland operator’s licence, use contravened section 1 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010, giving authority for detention under regulation 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012.
3. The international-haulage exemption in paragraph 22A of the Schedule to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) (Exemption) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 was not established. Although the vehicle was a goods vehicle and the appellant held a Bulgarian Community licence, there was insufficient evidence that the vehicle was used for international haulage by a haulier established in a Member State.
4. The cabotage exemption in paragraph 23 was also unavailable. Cabotage required an incoming international carriage and temporary national carriage in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009. The vehicle had not travelled from Bulgaria and the evidence indicated regular United Kingdom operation. Romantiek Transport BVBA & Others v VOSA [2008] EWCA Civ 534 explained that the exemption could not legitimise a vehicle operating full-time in a Member State other than its State of purported establishment.
5. The argument that article 462 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement could not be enforced in Northern Ireland did not affect the result. Detention was independently lawful under the 2010 Act.
6. The appellant proved ownership of the vehicle, but failed to prove ownership of the trailer on the balance of probabilities. In any event, the conditions for returning the vehicle were not satisfied because the vehicle was unlicensed and the evidence did not establish the statutory safeguards concerning the owner’s knowledge or preventive steps.
7. The Department’s decisions to refuse return and order disposal of both items were therefore upheld.

• Department for Infrastructure for Northern Ireland: On 12 April 2022, refused return of the vehicle and trailer and ordered their disposal.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal dismissed. The Department’s factual findings and decisions were not plainly wrong.