Nyanza Express Transport and Training Ltd & Anor
[2024] UKUT 267 (AAC)
Nirwan Ltd & Anor
13 July 2023
[2023] UKUT 172 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A trucking company and its boss got their licenses taken away because they were dishonest and didn't follow the rules. A judge reviewed the case and agreed the punishment was fair.
Key Facts
- •Nirwan Ltd and Mr. Daljeet Singh Nirwan appealed a Traffic Commissioner's decision to revoke their operator's licenses, disqualify Mr. Nirwan as a transport manager, and disqualify both from holding future licenses.
- •The Traffic Commissioner found Mr. Nirwan untruthful, had created a false document, and had failed to maintain records.
- •The Commissioner found that Mr. Nirwan's actions undermined road safety and fair competition.
- •The appellants argued the Commissioner's balancing exercise gave insufficient weight to positive aspects and that the decisions were disproportionate.
- •The appellants did not contest the findings of fact but argued for leniency in the penalties.
Legal Principles
Traffic Commissioners can revoke licenses and disqualify individuals under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
In determining good repute, the Traffic Commissioner may consider any matter relevant to fitness to hold a licence.
Schedule 3, Paragraph 1, Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
The Upper Tribunal's role is to determine if the Traffic Commissioner's decision is objectively wrong or disproportionate.
Bradley Fold Travel and anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695
The 'Bryan Haulage' question considers whether the operator's conduct necessitates putting them out of business.
Bryan Haulage Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate Appeal 2002/217
A preliminary question to the 'Bryan Haulage' question assesses the likelihood of future compliance with the licensing regime.
Priority Freight & Paul Williams Appeal 2009/225
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal found the Traffic Commissioner's factual findings were unchallenged and the conclusions were not plainly wrong or disproportionate. The seriousness of Mr. Nirwan's dishonesty and the unlikelihood of future compliance justified the revocation and disqualification.