Sean Convery

On an appeal from an operator-licensing decision, the Upper Tribunal conducts a review rather than a complete rehearing. The appellant must show that the reasoning or application of law requires a different view.

Procedural unfairness at a public inquiry will ordinarily justify allowing an appeal and remitting the matter. However, where the sanctions are substantively disproportionate on the evidence, the Tribunal may set aside the decision and substitute a proportionate regulatory outcome.

Past compliance failures remain serious, but the assessment must also take account of current improvements, financial standing, the scale of the proposed operation, and any period already spent unable to operate.

The appellant held a Standard International goods vehicle operator’s licence. Following notifications of most serious infringements, a compliance audit and concerns about financial standing, the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit convened a public inquiry.

The Presiding Officer revoked the licence, found that the appellant had lost repute as an operator and transport manager, imposed an indefinite transport-manager disqualification subject to obtaining a new CPC, and disqualified him from holding or applying for an operator’s licence for 12 months.

On appeal, the appellant challenged both the fairness of the public inquiry and the proportionality of the regulatory sanctions. The central issues were whether the inquiry had been conducted fairly and whether the revocation, findings of loss of repute and disqualifications were proportionate.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal set aside the Presiding Officer’s decision and substituted its own decision. The Tribunal applied the established appellate approach: it reviews the material and the public-inquiry transcript, rather than beginning the case again, and may intervene where the reasoning and application of law require a different view.

2. There was a strong case that the public inquiry had been conducted unfairly. The Presiding Officer insisted on controlling the manner in which the appellant’s representative could present the case, and drew adverse inferences from the appellant’s conduct during questioning. Ordinarily, a finding of procedural unfairness would lead to a fresh public inquiry. The Tribunal did not remit because the appeal succeeded on the substantive issue.

3. The appellant’s compliance history was poor. It included most serious infringements, non-notification, a very serious infringement, other offences and an unsatisfactory compliance audit. Those matters were serious regulatory concerns.

4. Nevertheless, the combined sanctions were disproportionate. Material matters in the appellant’s favour included engagement of a transport consultant, evidence of operational improvement, a booked transport-manager course, sufficient evidence of financial standing, a reduction to one vehicle, and the fact that the 12-month operator disqualification had already been served. The Tribunal also noted the appellant’s serious accident and the subsequent provision of documentation which had not been accepted electronically at the audit.

5. The appellant’s operator and transport-manager repute were restored. Before acting again as transport manager, he must obtain a new Certificate of Professional Competence. The licence was restored on conditions that he employ an approved new transport manager and that the authorisation be curtailed to three vehicles and three trailers.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed the appeal in [2024] UKUT 312 (AAC), set aside the Presiding Officer’s decision, and substituted conditional restoration of the licence and repute.
• Head of the Transport Regulation Unit / Presiding Officer: On 31 May 2023 revoked the operator’s licence, found loss of operator and transport-manager repute, imposed an indefinite transport-manager disqualification subject to a new CPC, and disqualified the appellant from holding or applying for an operator’s licence for 12 months.