John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage

An appellate tribunal should intervene in a Traffic Commissioner’s decision only where objective grounds show that the reasoning or application of law requires a different view, or that the decision was plainly wrong. Unlawful use of vehicles beyond an operator’s authorisation may justify revocation where the statutory licensing objectives, compliance history, future compliance prospects and seriousness of the conduct support that outcome. A lawful sub-contracting arrangement does not protect an arrangement which in operation places control of the vehicles with an unauthorised operator. Disqualification periods must be separately assessed. The decision-maker must balance the regulatory objectives against the individual impact, give adequate reasons, and consider representations on duration. Failure to do so may make the periods plainly wrong even where revocation and disqualification are otherwise justified.

The appellant operated a standard national operator’s licence and was also its transport manager. Following a public inquiry, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner found that vehicles registered to the appellant were being operated on another operator’s licence, while the appellant financed and controlled the operation. The appellant was found to be the unlawful user of the vehicles, to have operated more vehicles than his licence authorised, and to have lost good repute as operator and transport manager.

The Deputy Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence, imposed a ten-year disqualification from holding an operator’s licence, and imposed an indefinite disqualification from acting as transport manager. The appellant challenged the findings, revocation, procedural fairness and duration of the sanctions. The central issues were whether the user finding and revocation were plainly wrong, and whether the disqualification periods had been lawfully and proportionately determined.

1. Appeal standard. The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 permits review of law and fact, but intervention requires objective grounds showing that the reasoning and application of law require a different view. The decision below was to be treated as correct unless plainly wrong, having regard to the decision-maker’s advantage in assessing the evidence.
2. User of the vehicles. Sections 2(1) and 58(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 require the person using goods vehicles for the relevant purposes to hold an operator’s licence. Following Interlink Express Parcels v Night Trunkers Ltd, the paramount consideration is control over the relevant activity. Payment of wages, engagement, dismissal and discipline are relevant but subsidiary matters. The appellant’s financing of drivers, fuel and maintenance, ownership or registration of the vehicles, control of the operating centre and later appointment as transport manager justified the finding that he was the user. The absence of express reference to Night Trunkers did not make the decision plainly wrong because its application would have produced the same result.
3. Revocation. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner applied the questions in Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage: whether the operator ought to be put out of business and whether future compliance was likely. The appellant’s prolonged unlawful use, repeated compliance failures, poor history, commercial advantage and breach of trust supported revocation. Lawful sub-contracting is permissible, but the evidence supported the conclusion that this arrangement was not genuinely operated as such and had continued outside its intended parameters. The decision-maker was not required separately to explain why every lesser disposal was unavailable once the reasoning made revocation inevitable. Revocation was not disproportionate.
4. Disqualification. The findings justified disqualification from holding an operator’s licence and from acting as transport manager. However, the periods required a distinct assessment. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner failed to balance the statutory objectives against the significant financial and practical impact, gave insufficient reasons for the durations, and did not adequately consider representations on length. The ten-year operator disqualification and indefinite transport-manager disqualification were therefore plainly wrong.
5. Disposition. The appeal was allowed in part. The Upper Tribunal remade the orders under paragraph 17(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985: five years’ disqualification from holding an operator’s licence and seven years’ disqualification from acting as transport manager, both effective from 23:59 on 16 September 2023. The remaining orders were confirmed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 14 July 2023. The appeal was allowed in part on the duration of the disqualifications, and the orders were remade.
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland: revoked the operator’s licence, imposed a ten-year operator disqualification and imposed an indefinite transport-manager disqualification.