NI Truck Rentals Ltd v Head of the Transport Regulation Unit
[2023] UKUT 60 (AAC)
Toland Plant Ltd v Driver and Vehicle Agency
31 May 2023
[2023] UKUT 126 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A company's truck and trailer were taken away because they were used without the right license. The company tried to get them back, saying they were going to and from a vehicle test, and weren't for hire. The judge said the company didn't prove it, and they didn't have enough proof they owned the trailer. So the truck and trailer stayed taken.
Key Facts
- •Toland Plant Ltd appealed a decision to refuse the return of a detained vehicle (SV56 EFB) and trailer (NI/058318/10).
- •The vehicle and trailer were detained on June 13, 2022, due to the driver's expired CPC card and the absence of a valid operator's license.
- •The vehicle had passed its MOT test on June 4, 2022.
- •Toland Plant Ltd claimed the vehicle was exempt from licensing as it was returning from its MOT test.
- •Toland Plant Ltd also claimed the vehicle was not being used for hire or reward.
- •The Head of the TRU determined that Toland Plant Ltd owned the vehicle but not the trailer.
- •The Head of the TRU rejected the exemption claim, noting the nine-day gap between the MOT test and the detention.
- •The Head of the TRU also rejected the claim that the vehicle was not used for hire or reward, citing the company's transport business.
- •Toland Plant Ltd appealed on grounds of incorrect ownership determination for the trailer, wrongful denial of the MOT exemption, incorrect determination of hire/reward use, and unlawful seizure.
- •Toland Plant Ltd sought to admit fresh evidence of full payment for the trailer.
Legal Principles
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal is a review of the Head of the TRU’s decision, not a hearing de novo.
Fergal Hughes v DOENI & Perry McKee Homes Ltd v DOENI [2013] UKUT 618 AAC
The appellant bears the burden of showing the decision under appeal is wrong.
Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695
The Upper Tribunal will only allow an appeal if the process of reasoning and application of relevant law require a different view.
Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 (s.1): Requires an operator's licence for using a goods vehicle on a road for hire or reward, or in connection with a trade or business.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010
Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 (Regulation 3): Authorises detention of vehicles used in contravention of s.1 of the 2010 Act.
Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Exemption) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 (Paragraph 11): Exemption from operator's licence for vehicles to/from vehicle testing centres for examination purposes; only load allowed is for the examination.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Exemption) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012
Standard of proof for detention and ownership is the balance of probabilities.
Nolan Transport v VOSA & Secretary of State for Transport (T/2011/60)
The Upper Tribunal has discretion to admit fresh evidence, but it is not the usual course. The Ladd v Marshall criteria should be considered.
Ladd v Marshall (1954) 1 WLP 1489
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Head of the TRU's decision was not "plainly wrong". The vehicle was used in connection with the appellant's business without a valid operator's licence, and the evidence for trailer ownership was insufficient.
Similar Cases
Bulk Tranz Haulage Ltd, Bulgaria v Department for Infrastructure for Northern Ireland
[2023] UKUT 87 (AAC)
Nugent International Limited v Presiding Officer
[2024] UKUT 8 (AAC)
The lawful owner of the vehicle with registration number BL12 AEM v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
[2024] UKUT 133 (AAC)
Slemish Group Ltd v Head of the Transport Regulation Unit
[2023] UKUT 29 (AAC)