Shaun Gallagher & Anor

On an appeal against a licensing decision, the Upper Tribunal reviews the material before the decision-maker and intervenes only where the appellant shows that the reasoning and application of the law require a different conclusion. The shorthand test is whether the decision was plainly wrong.

For a heavy goods vehicle licence, the proposed operating centre must be both available and suitable. A site may be unavailable where the operator has no written arrangement confirming its use, and unsuitable where its surface creates a road-safety risk. The availability of possible licence conditions does not make a refusal plainly wrong.

Mr Shaun Gallagher and PG Haulage Limited appealed against the Department for Infrastructure for Northern Ireland’s refusal, dated 20 May 2024, of an application to vary an operator’s licence. The application sought to replace the operating centre and increase the authorised vehicles and trailer.

The Department concluded that the proposed site was unsuitable because parts of its surface were muddy and unavailable because there was no contract or other written agreement with the site owner. The central issue was whether that refusal was plainly wrong on a review of the information before the Department.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal’s function was to review the information before the Department and its decision. The appellant bore the burden of showing that the reasoning and application of the relevant law required a different view. The Tribunal applied the plainly wrong formulation described in Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 and Clarke v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd [1919] UKHL 303.
2. Sections 12 and 16 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 applied the requirements of section 12C to the variation application. Section 12C(5) required the operating centre to be both available and suitable.
3. The Department was entitled to find that the proposed site was unsuitable. It was agreed that ground works were needed to prevent mud and debris being carried onto the public road. The appellant’s willingness to undertake those works in the future did not establish present suitability.
4. The Department was also entitled to find that the site was unavailable. A verbal understanding with the owner did not provide sufficient assurance. A formal lease was not necessarily required before approval, but written confirmation of availability could have been sufficient.
5. The Tribunal observed that the Department could have made an interim grant subject to conditions concerning the surface, allocated parking spaces and written confirmation of the arrangement, relying on sections 12(7) and (8). That would have been preferable, but the refusal was not plainly wrong.

• Department for Infrastructure for Northern Ireland: refused the application to vary the operator’s licence on 20 May 2024.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal.