Anthony Brayley-Willmetts, Re

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the Upper Tribunal determines fact and law on the material available to the Commissioner. The appellant must show that the Commissioner’s reasoning or application of law requires a different conclusion.

A finding that a transport manager has lost good repute must be proportionate. If loss of repute is properly found, however, disqualification is mandatory; proportionality is not reconsidered separately at that stage. A Commissioner may make factual findings on the balance of probabilities, preferring what is likely or probable to an alternative which is merely possible.

The appellant was a nominated transport manager for a two-vehicle goods-vehicle operation. Following a DVSA investigation and a public inquiry, the Traffic Commissioner found serious shortcomings in roadworthiness management. They included inadequate safety-inspection records, defects and insufficient control of the maintenance provider.

The Commissioner found that the appellant had lost good repute as a transport manager and disqualified him for one year and until he again passed the transport-manager certificate of professional competence. The appellant contended that the sanction was excessive and challenged aspects of the Commissioner’s factual findings and reasons.

The appeal concerned whether the Commissioner had made a material error of fact or law, or had reached a plainly wrong or disproportionate decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Traffic Commissioner’s decision disclosed no material error of law or fact and was neither plainly wrong nor disproportionate.

2. Under Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, the Tribunal considered the appeal on the material that had been before the Commissioner. The appellant had to show that the Commissioner’s reasoning or legal application required a different conclusion. The Tribunal was not persuaded that he had done so.

3. The Commissioner was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the tyre defects had probably existed long enough to be apparent at a driver walkaround check. The use of terms such as likely, possible and probable was consistent with that civil standard of proof.

4. The Commissioner was also entitled to find that the appellant bore responsibility for the technical roadworthiness matters. The deficiencies were basic and fundamental. They showed that he had not exercised even basic control over inspections, defects and the maintenance provider.

5. The reasons concerning the absence of evidence about the appellant’s other operator’s licence could have been clearer. That deficiency was immaterial because the Commissioner had recognised that the call-up letter had not named that operator, and the remaining findings independently justified the decision.

6. Applying paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the Tribunal held that loss of repute was proportionate. As explained in H. Sivyer (Transport) Ltd. and Simon Sivyer [2014] UKUT 0404 (AAC), disqualification followed mandatorily once loss of repute was found. The one-year disqualification therefore stood.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal in [2025] UKUT 217 (AAC).
• Traffic Commissioner for the West of England Traffic Area: on 14 October 2024 found that the appellant had lost good repute as a transport manager and disqualified him for one year and until he again passed the certificate of professional competence.