DFL's trucking licenses were revoked because they didn't tell the government about important changes (like their address and who was in charge), and they ignored official letters. The court said the government was right to revoke the licenses because DFL didn't follow the rules.
Key Facts
- •DFL Transport Limited held two operator's licenses (627 and 289), both subsequently revoked.
- •License 627 had issues: incomplete transport manager application, no operating center, and failure to respond to correspondence.
- •License 289 also had issues: failure to respond to correspondence, change of address without notification, and the revocation of the linked license 627.
- •Directors Michal Frasunski and Pawel Domanski failed to respond to multiple 'Propose to Revoke' letters.
- •Karol Frasunski, later becoming managing director, attempted to rectify the situation after the revocations.
- •The appeal was heard in the absence of the appellant.
Legal Principles
Operators must inform the Traffic Commissioner (TC) of events affecting professional competence, address changes, and operating center changes.
s.22 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Failure to comply with conditions and undertakings on a license can lead to revocation.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
The Upper Tribunal will only overturn a Traffic Commissioner's decision if it is 'plainly wrong'.
Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Traffic Commissioner's decision was not plainly wrong. DFL's serious regulatory failings, including failure to respond to correspondence and lack of an operating center, justified the revocation.