Connect Highways Limited, Re

An appellate tribunal reviewing a Traffic Commissioner’s licensing decision will not rehear the application. It will dismiss the appeal unless procedural unfairness, a plain error, or the applicable facts and law justify intervention.

Under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, a standard operator’s licence must be refused where the applicant fails to satisfy the statutory requirements for professional competence and for an available, suitable and sufficiently capacious operating centre.

Connect Highways Limited appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of its application for a standard national operator’s licence for two vehicles and two trailers.

The application did not provide the nominated transport manager’s certificate of professional competence, an explanation with supporting evidence of the company’s transport arrangements, or an aerial image demonstrating the availability and suitability of the proposed operating centre. The company accepted that it did not possess the required certificate and that the application before the Traffic Commissioner was bound to fail.

The central issue was whether the refusal disclosed procedural unfairness, a factual mistake or an error of law warranting intervention on appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction was one of review, not rehearing. Applying the appellate approach in Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was procedurally unfair or plainly wrong, or that the facts or law required the appeal to be allowed.

2. Section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 required refusal of a standard operator’s licence where the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements in sections 13A and 13C. The application did not establish professional competence under section 13A(3), because the nominated transport manager did not hold the required certificate of professional competence.

3. The application also did not provide the material required to establish that the proposed operating centre was available, suitable and had adequate capacity under sections 13C(5) and 13C(6). The later production of an aerial photograph with the appeal did not show error in the decision made on the material before the Traffic Commissioner.

4. The Tribunal noted that the company appeared to carry only its own goods and could instead consider applying for a restricted operator’s licence. That observation did not affect the validity of the refusal of the standard licence application.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of the application for a standard national operator’s licence.

• Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: on 20 September 2024, refused the application under section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.