Fraser Devlin (t/ae Silver Swan Travel)

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the appellant bears the burden of showing that the decision was wrong. It is insufficient to show that the appellate tribunal might prefer another view. The appellant must identify objective grounds requiring a different conclusion.

Findings of credibility by the decision-maker who heard the evidence attract considerable weight. An indefinite disqualification from holding a PSV operator’s licence may be justified where deliberate or reckless non-compliance, commercial advantage, breaches affecting road safety, and concealment or misleading conduct demonstrate a serious breach of regulatory trust. Such a disqualification remains reviewable: the individual may apply for its termination by showing that the public interest no longer requires it.

The appellant operated a restricted PSV operator’s licence after losing his main occupation, failed to obtain the appropriate standard licence, operated more vehicles than authorised, and breached drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner revoked the restricted licence, refused the standard licence application, and disqualified the appellant indefinitely under Transport Act 1985, section 28.

Before the Upper Tribunal, the appellant accepted the revocation, refusal and a period of disqualification. He challenged only the indefinite duration, contending that it was disproportionate for a first offence and disputing adverse credibility findings. The central issues were whether the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s findings and exercise of discretion involved an error of law or were plainly wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 4 March 2025 to disqualify the appellant indefinitely was confirmed.
2. The Upper Tribunal applied the principles in Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695. The appellant assumed the burden of showing that the decision was wrong. The Tribunal was not conducting a rehearing. It was insufficient that it might have preferred another view. The appellant had to show objective grounds requiring a different conclusion.
3. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s credibility findings were entitled to great weight because he had heard the appellant’s evidence. The Upper Tribunal found no reason to disturb the findings that the appellant knew he could not lawfully continue under the restricted licence and had attempted to mislead the traffic examiner.
4. The decision-maker was entitled to regard the appellant’s conduct as severe. He deliberately operated without the necessary authority, expanded the operation while knowing of the non-compliance, obtained a commercial advantage, breached drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements, and failed to make adequate arrangements for compliance. The indefinite disqualification was within the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s discretion and was rationally connected to road safety, fair competition and securing compliance with the regulatory regime. The guidance in Statutory Document 10 was not mandatory.
5. Indefinite disqualification was not irrevocable. Following Randolph Transport Ltd and Catherine Tottenham T/2014/59, the appellant could apply for the disqualification to be lifted. He would bear the onus of showing that the public interest no longer required its continuation, having regard to the original reasons, later events and the passage of time.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): the appeal against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision was dismissed and the indefinite disqualification confirmed.
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland: on 4 March 2025, the restricted PSV operator’s licence was revoked, the standard licence application was refused, and the appellant was disqualified indefinitely.