JT Construction (NE) Ltd, Re

An appeal against a Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of a standard national operator’s licence is a review of the material before the Commissioner, not a rehearing. The Upper Tribunal will intervene only where the reasoning or application of the law requires a different view, commonly expressed as whether the decision was plainly wrong. Evidence produced for the first time on appeal cannot ordinarily establish that the original decision was erroneous. Financial standing must be assessed by reference to the position at the date of the Commissioner’s decision and the statutory requirements. Where the applicant was given a proper opportunity to provide evidence and failed to demonstrate the required financial standing, refusal of the application is required.

The appellant applied for a standard operator’s licence authorising one vehicle and one trailer. The Traffic Commissioner requested evidence of the company’s financial standing, including evidence that £8,000 had been available during a qualifying 28-day period. The company supplied financial evidence which ended in December 2023 and therefore did not satisfy the specified timing requirement.

The Commissioner refused the application on 18 December 2024 under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. On appeal, the company relied principally on more recent evidence showing that it could now satisfy the financial standing requirement. The central issue was whether the Commissioner’s decision involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or plainly wrong factual assessment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal jurisdiction was one of review rather than rehearing. The Tribunal had to consider whether the Commissioner’s decision was wrong on the basis of the material available to the Commissioner.
2. Under section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, refusal was mandatory if any requirement in section 13A was not satisfied. Section 13A(2)(c), read with paragraph 6A of Schedule 3, required the Commissioner to be satisfied that the operator had appropriate financial standing and had capital and reserves at its disposal at all times in the amount applicable to the proposed licence.
3. Applying the review approach in Bradley Fold Travel Limited and Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, the Tribunal asked whether the process of reasoning and application of the relevant law required a different view, or whether the decision was plainly wrong.
4. The company had been clearly notified of the deficiencies in its financial evidence and given a proper opportunity to provide further material. Evidence showing that it could satisfy the requirement during or after the appeal could not establish an error in the Commissioner’s decision where it had not been before the Commissioner. The Commissioner correctly applied the statutory provisions and was required to refuse the application on the evidence available.
5. No procedural unfairness, error of law or plainly wrong assessment was shown. The company remained free to make a fresh application supported by more recent financial evidence.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) [2025] UKUT 207 (AAC): appeal dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North East Traffic Area: application for a standard operator’s licence refused on 18 December 2024 under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.