KSJ Transports Ltd

A revocation decision involves an error of law where the Traffic Commissioner fails to take account of relevant evidence because materially incorrect information was supplied to the decision-maker. The decision must be set aside where the correct information would probably have led to approval of the proposed transport manager and avoided revocation.

The Upper Tribunal cannot order a Traffic Commissioner to pay costs in an operator-licensing appeal. The Commissioner is not a party to that appeal, and the statutory and procedural costs jurisdiction does not extend to such an order.

The operator appealed against a Traffic Commissioner’s direction, dated 30 June or 6 July 2023, revoking its goods vehicle operator’s licence because it had no designated transport manager.

The Commissioner had refused the proposed appointment of Ramapreet Saggi after being told that she was connected with an active DVSA investigation and possible regulatory action concerning another operator. On reviewing the papers after the appeal, the Commissioner confirmed that this information was materially incorrect and accepted that the appeal should be allowed.

The appeal was determined on the papers. The issues were whether the revocation involved an error of law and whether costs could be ordered against the Traffic Commissioner.

1. Appeal allowed. The revocation direction involved an error of law and was set aside. The Commissioner did not take account of relevant evidence: the correct factual position concerning DVSA involvement with the proposed transport manager and the other operator. That omission resulted from incorrect information not being drawn to the Commissioner’s attention. The Commissioner accepted that, but for that information, he would probably have approved the appointment and the licence would not have been revoked.
2. The Tribunal made no further order. Its decision did not prevent the Traffic Commissioner from commencing fresh regulatory action, including by issuing a fresh notice under section 27(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, if appropriate.
3. Costs refused. A costs order against the Traffic Commissioner would be legally impossible. Under rule 1(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Commissioner is not a respondent to an appeal from the Commissioner’s decision. The Tribunal’s road-transport costs jurisdiction arises only in the circumstances prescribed by rule 10(3) and section 29(4) and (5) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. As the Commissioner was not a party, the Tribunal lacked power to order payment of the operator’s costs.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal and set aside the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation direction: [2025] UKUT 60 (AAC).
• Traffic Commissioner: directed revocation of the operator’s licence on 30 June or 6 July 2023.