SPS Logistics Limited v Department for Infrastructure (NI)

On an appeal against refusal of an operator’s licence, the Upper Tribunal reviews the material before the decision-maker and intervenes only where the reasoning and application of the law require a different view, commonly expressed as whether the decision was “plainly wrong”.

For a heavy goods vehicle licence, an operating centre may be available yet unsuitable under s.12C(5) because existing use leaves no practical spare capacity. That is distinct from the requirement in s.12C(6) that the site have sufficient capacity for all vehicles used under the applicant’s licence. An erroneous reason does not require an appeal to succeed where the refusal was nevertheless lawfully open on the evidence.

SPS Logistics Limited appealed against the Central Licensing Office’s refusal, dated 5 June 2025, of its application for a Standard International Operator’s Licence for one vehicle and two trailers. The proposed operating centre was already used by other operators and the site assessment identified very limited available parking.

The Department refused the application on the basis that the operating centre lacked sufficient capacity under s.12C(6) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010. The central issues were whether the Department had applied the correct statutory requirement and whether subsequent reductions in use of the site could be considered on appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The decision to refuse the licence did not involve a material error of law and was not plainly wrong.
2. The Upper Tribunal’s function under s.35 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 is to review the information before the decision-maker and the decision based on it. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the reasoning and application of the law require a different view. The Tribunal is not conducting a rehearing or deciding the licence application afresh. This approach was drawn from Fergal Hughes v DOENI & Perry McKee Homes Ltd v DOENI [2013] UKUT 618 AAC and Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, and expressed by reference to Clarke v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd [1919] UKHL 303.
3. The Department was wrong to conclude that s.12C(6) was unsatisfied. The measured area identified for the appellant could accommodate its single vehicle, which was all that the licence application required in relation to heavy goods vehicles. The evidence did not establish that the vehicle and two trailers could be accommodated, but the statutory wording concerned all heavy goods vehicles used under the licence.
4. However, s.12C(5) required the proposed operating centre to be available and suitable. Under s.12C(9), the Department could take account of the site’s use by other licence holders and for other purposes. The evidence showed that the site was saturated and that practical spare capacity was unavailable. The Department was therefore entitled to refuse the application because the site was unsuitable, even though its stated reliance on s.12C(6) was mistaken.
5. The alleged reduction in the number of vehicles using the site occurred after the refusal and could not be considered under the appellate jurisdiction. The principle in Ladd v Marshall (1954) 1 WLR 1489 did not assist because the evidence did not exist when the decision was made.
6. The Tribunal criticised the Department’s lack of clarity and cooperation. It should have considered whether further enquiries, conditions or undertakings could resolve the capacity issue and should have addressed the other statutory requirements. Those observations were not part of the basis for allowing the appeal and did not alter the outcome.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Central Licensing Office decision dismissed. The decision dated 5 June 2025 was held not to involve a material error of law and not to be plainly wrong.
• Central Licensing Office, Department for Infrastructure (NI): application for a Standard International Operator’s Licence refused on the stated basis that the proposed operating centre lacked capacity.