Belvoir Logistics Ltd &Anor v Driver and Vehicle Agency (Northern Ireland)

An appellate tribunal reviewing a public inquiry decision must review the material before the original decision-maker and intervene only where the reasoning and application of law require a different view. A public inquiry must generally remain open to observers. Regulatory staff may attend as observers, but should be physically separated from the decision-maker and must not influence the decision. Apparent bias is assessed objectively by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Loss of good repute and revocation require a proportionate regulatory response. The decision-maker should assess both the likelihood of future compliance and whether the conduct warrants putting the operator out of business. Past breaches remain relevant, particularly where non-compliance persists despite remedial measures.

Belvoir Logistics Ltd held a standard international operator’s licence, and Shane Tinnelly was its sole director and transport manager. Following numerous maintenance, drivers’ hours, vehicle and enforcement-related infringements, an audit was rated unsatisfactory in several areas. A Presiding Officer revoked the licence, disqualified Mr Tinnelly indefinitely as transport manager and disqualified both appellants from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for 12 months.

The appellants appealed, alleging procedural unfairness and apparent bias arising from the presence and seating of Traffic Regulation Unit staff at the public inquiry, errors in the assessment of evidence and infringements, and disproportionate treatment of past conduct. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the Presiding Officer’s decision involved a material error of law or was plainly wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Presiding Officer’s decision did not involve a material error of law and was not plainly wrong. The stay ceased to apply and the directions took effect from 23:59 on 31 December 2025.
2. The Upper Tribunal’s task was to review the information before the Presiding Officer and the decision based on it. The appeal was not a rehearing. The appellants bore the burden of showing that the reasoning and application of law required a different view.
3. The inquiry was required to be public. The presence of Traffic Regulation Unit staff as observers did not justify exclusion. They had no entitlement to participate or influence the decision, and their identities did not have to be disclosed. However, observers should not sit at the same table or in the immediate vicinity of the decision-maker, since that arrangement risks creating an appearance of involvement.
4. No procedural unfairness occurred. The Presiding Officer gave a firm assurance that he alone would decide the case and that any relevant information from the inquiry clerk would be raised publicly, with an opportunity to comment. Nothing untoward occurred during the inquiry.
5. The apparent-bias test was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The application to exclude the staff did not establish bias. The Presiding Officer remained professional, considered the evidence and allowed substantial closing submissions.
6. The Presiding Officer was entitled to draw a rational inference from the operator’s failure to engage openly with enforcement authorities, to assess the operator’s evidence as inadequate or unconvincing, and to treat driver infringements as relevant to the operator’s regulatory responsibility. Responsibility was distinct from culpability; an operator could not avoid responsibility by attributing breaches to drivers.
7. Loss of good repute and revocation had to be proportionate, but the relevant assessment could include the operator’s past conduct. The decision-maker had to consider both the likelihood of future compliance and whether the conduct was such that the operator ought to be put out of business. Persistent breaches continuing after professional assistance justified the findings that the operator could not be trusted to comply and that revocation was appropriate.
8. Once loss of good repute was established, revocation was mandatory. Having answered the two proportionality questions with adequate reasons, the Presiding Officer did not need separately to explain why lesser regulatory options were unavailable.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal against the Presiding Officer’s decision dated 6 June 2024. The decision was held not to involve a material error of law and not to be plainly wrong.
• Presiding Officer on behalf of the Department for Infrastructure: revoked the operator’s licence, disqualified Shane Tinnelly indefinitely as a transport manager and imposed 12-month operator-licence disqualifications.