Hard Concrete Limited & Anor

An adjournment application in a traffic commissioner’s public inquiry must be determined by examining all the circumstances, the reasons for the application and its consequences, and deciding what fairness requires. The fact that representation is optional does not answer whether an unrepresented operator can adequately present its case. Where language difficulties and case complexity materially affect that ability, refusal of an adjournment may cause substantial unfairness. The Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions may assist in assessing fitness and proportionality when revoking a restricted licence. Disqualification does not follow routinely from revocation. An appellate tribunal may remit where procedural unfairness means that the outcome might have been different.

Hard Concrete Limited held two restricted operator’s licences and had applied for a further licence. Following repeated maintenance and regulatory failings, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner revoked the existing licences, refused the new application and disqualified Mr Dhillon, the company’s sole director, for six months.

Mr Dhillon sought an adjournment to obtain legal advice, citing financial difficulties and English being his second language. The request was refused. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the refusal was fair, whether the revocation and disqualification decisions were proportionate, and whether the application for the further licence should also be remitted.

1. Appeal allowed and matters remitted. The decisions concerning all three licences were remitted for a further hearing before a traffic commissioner selected by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. The disqualification direction consequently fell.
2. Whether to adjourn is a discretionary decision requiring a full examination of the circumstances leading to the application, its reasons and the consequences for the parties. The ultimate question is what fairness requires. The approach in R. v. Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands) [1998] Q.B. 110 was applicable.
3. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner treated representation as optional and referred generally to the case background. He did not appear to consider whether Mr Dhillon and the company could adequately present their case, having regard to Mr Dhillon’s language difficulties and the complexity of the issues. A representative might have addressed the improvements made, future compliance plans and the appropriate regulatory sanction. Refusal of any adjournment therefore caused substantial unfairness.
4. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the revocation decisions were plainly wrong on the material before the Deputy Traffic Commissioner. The history showed repeated failings and continuing safety concerns. However, it was reasonably possible that effective representation would have produced further evidence and submissions capable of affecting the outcome.
5. The Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions could properly inform the assessment of fitness and proportionality in relation to a restricted licence. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner was entitled to consider future compliance, but the procedural unfairness affected the reliability of the resulting decisions.
6. Disqualification does not follow routinely from revocation, although no additional feature is required. Reasons must be given for the particular period imposed. The reasons given here were adequate on the material available, but the order could not stand because the necessary precondition of revocation might not have existed and a different sanction might have been imposed.
7. The application for the further licence was remitted because, in practical terms, it concerned continuation of the existing business at its proposed operating centre and was interlinked with the revocation decisions.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision allowed. The decisions revoking two licences, refusing a further licence and disqualifying Mr Dhillon were remitted for rehearing.
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area: on 4 July 2024 revoked licences OK2012880 and OH2017026, refused application OF2067675 and disqualified Mr Dhillon for six months.