Key Facts
- •REL Haulage Limited appealed the Traffic Commissioner's (TC) refusal of their goods vehicle operator's licence application.
- •The TC's refusal was based on REL Haulage Limited's lack of good repute, citing concerns about the business practices and history of its associates, Mr. Scott and Mr. Lewis.
- •The TC raised concerns about a potential attempt to sidestep liabilities from previous companies.
- •The appeal focused on unfairness in the proceedings, incorrect factual findings, and the TC's alleged improper piercing of the corporate veil.
- •Fresh evidence was admitted from Mr. Scott and Mr. Lewis, detailing their business model and refuting some of the TC's claims.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found the hearing to be unfair due to insufficient notice of the TC's concerns in pre-hearing documents.
- •The UT did not address the factual accuracy issue due to the unfairness finding.
- •The UT partially addressed the corporate veil issue, indicating the TC's decision was unreasoned but that the TC may inquire into who is the controlling mind of the applicant company, within legal boundaries.
Legal Principles
Good repute assessment considers compliance with operator licensing regime.
NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport and Sons Limited v DOENI
Decision-makers can consider conduct that isn't unlawful when assessing good repute.
T/2016/72 Catch 22 Bus Limited and Phillip Higgs v Secretary of State for Transport
Corporate veil piercing requires impropriety linked to avoiding liability.
VTB Capital PLC v Nutritek International Corporation
UT will not rehear evidence but considers the matter on the basis of the material before the TC.
Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695
Call-up letters are not pleadings but must afford fairness
2001/72 AR Brooks, 2006/313 D Lloyd, 2009/516 F Ahmed and H Ahmed
Admission of fresh evidence must meet Ladd v Marshall criteria.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The UT found the proceedings unfair due to insufficient notice of the TC's concerns regarding Mr. Scott and Mr. Lewis's business history in the pre-hearing documents. This unfairness was material and likely impacted the outcome.
TC's decision set aside.
The UT deemed the hearing unfair, and the lack of sufficient pre-hearing notice prevented a proper opportunity for REL Haulage to address the TC's concerns.
Case remitted for reconsideration.
A new PI before a different TC is necessary to address the outstanding issues regarding the business practices of Mr. Scott and Mr. Lewis and their relevance to REL Haulage's good repute, and the matter of corporate control.