Happi & Family Co Limited

An appeal against a Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of a standard national operator’s licence is a review, not a rehearing. The Upper Tribunal should intervene only where the decision involved an error of law, a mistake of fact, procedural unfairness, or was plainly wrong such that the facts or law should impel a different result. An applicant must provide the information required by the operator-licensing legislation within the relevant procedural timescales, including evidence concerning bankruptcy and a signed transport manager declaration.

The Appellant applied for a standard national operator’s licence authorising two vehicles and two trailers. The Traffic Commissioner refused the application under section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 because the Appellant had not filed a signed transport manager application and had not supplied details of its director’s bankruptcy or a certificate of discharge.

The director later obtained and filed the relevant documents during the appeal. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the Traffic Commissioner had erred in law, made a material mistake of fact, acted procedurally unfairly, or reached a decision that was plainly wrong.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction was supervisory. It could not rehear the application or treat later production of missing documents as curing the Traffic Commissioner’s decision.
2. Under section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, an application for a standard operator’s licence must be refused where the applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable requirements of sections 13A and 14A(1) and Schedule 3. Those requirements include professional competence, appropriate financial standing and good repute.
3. The application was incomplete when refused. No signed transport manager declaration had been filed. The Appellant had also failed to provide the requested bankruptcy details and certificate of discharge within the deadlines set by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. The later documents did not establish an error in the original decision.
4. The Tribunal found no procedural unfairness. The Appellant had been warned twice that the application would be refused if the missing information was not supplied. He could have obtained the certificate before applying or sought an extension when it became apparent that the deadline could not be met.
5. Applying the approach in Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695, neither the facts nor the applicable law impelled the Tribunal to allow the appeal. The Traffic Commissioner’s decision was not plainly wrong.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal dismissed. The decision under appeal was dated 17 October 2024.