Gwendoline Joyce Greenwood and David Greenwood (in partnership)
[2023] UKUT 229 (AAC)
Morgan J Ltd
24 October 2024
[2024] UKUT 337 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A company applied for a trucking license but didn't provide the right paperwork showing they had enough money. The government agency refused the license, and the company appealed. The court said the agency followed the rules, so the appeal was rejected. The company needed to show it had enough money for at least 28 days to prove its financial stability.
Key Facts
- •Morgan J Ltd appealed the Traffic Commissioner's refusal of their restricted operator's licence application.
- •The refusal was based on insufficient and improperly formatted financial evidence.
- •The applicant failed to provide the required 28 days of bank statements.
- •The applicant's bank account was newly opened, hindering the provision of three months' worth of statements.
- •The Senior Traffic Commissioner's directions regarding acceptable financial evidence were followed by the Traffic Commissioner.
Legal Principles
Traffic Commissioners must act under the Senior Traffic Commissioner's general directions.
Section 1(2), Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Applicants must provide any information reasonably required by the Commissioner, including financial resources.
Section 8(4), Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Information must be provided in the form required by the Commissioner.
Section 8(6), Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
The Traffic Commissioner must consider whether the requirements of sections 13B, 13C, and 13D of the 1995 Act are satisfied.
Section 13(2), Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
If a requirement in section 13(2) is not satisfied, the application must be refused.
Section 13(5), Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
The Upper Tribunal has full jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals.
Section 37(1), Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and paragraph 17(1), Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985
A decision is only unlawful if it is irrational (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Traffic Commissioner's decision involved no error of fact or law. The applicant failed to provide adequate financial evidence in the required form and for the required duration.