Eric Stevenson Morrison

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the Upper Tribunal reviews the material before the Commissioner and intervenes only where the appellant shows that the reasoning and application of law require a different view, or that the decision was plainly wrong. Financial standing must be demonstrated by reliable evidence at the relevant time. A single bank statement showing a temporary balance is insufficient; property may be counted only where independently valued and capable of rapid liquidation. Where the statutory conditions for revocation are not satisfied, revocation is mandatory. A finding that a transport manager has lost good repute or professional competence may also require revocation and disqualification, subject to proportionality.

Mr Eric Stevenson Morrison appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 6 July 2023 concerning his standard national operator’s licence. The licence was revoked for lack of financial standing and because, as transport manager, he no longer satisfied the requirements of good repute and professional competence. He was disqualified from acting as a transport manager for one year.

The appeal challenged the refusal to allow further evidence of financial standing and the proportionality of the revocation and disqualification. The central issue was whether the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong or whether the Upper Tribunal should otherwise take a different view on the material available at the public inquiry.

Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal confirmed the Traffic Commissioner’s decision.

1. The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction under paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 is appellate. Under paragraph 17(3), it may not consider circumstances which did not exist when the appealed decision was made. It reviews the material before the Traffic Commissioner and intervenes only where objective grounds show that a different view is required or that the decision was plainly wrong: Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695; Clarke v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd [1919] UKHL 303; Subesh & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 56.
2. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to find that financial standing was not established. The appellant had notice of the evidence required and had not produced the necessary bank statements. A single statement offered by email on the day was an unauthenticated snapshot and did not demonstrate sustained financial standing.
3. Property can be taken into account only where independently valued and capable of rapid liquidation to meet unexpected repair bills. The appellant’s family property did not satisfy those criteria: LWB Limited [2011] UKUT 358 (AAC). The statutory requirement therefore left the Traffic Commissioner with no discretion to avoid revocation under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
4. The appellant accepted the adverse maintenance, inspection and management findings. The Traffic Commissioner had given the required notice and opportunity to make representations, considered proportionality, and was entitled to find loss of good repute and professional competence. Revocation under section 27(1)(b) was therefore required. The one-year transport-manager disqualification was not unreasonable and followed the applicable guidance, including the principle in Alistair Walter [2017] UKUT 0438 (AAC).
5. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant remained free to apply for a future operator’s licence, subject to proposing a different transport manager during the period of disqualification.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dismissed; the decision dated 6 July 2023 was confirmed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area: operator’s licence revoked for lack of financial standing and loss of the transport manager’s good repute and professional competence; one-year transport-manager disqualification imposed.