188体育

Read the full decision in .

Judicial Summary

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995; appellant鈥檚 operator鈥檚 licence was revoked by the Traffic Commissioner under section 27 by reason the appellant鈥檚 nominated transport managers not satisfying the statutory requirements. Held (by a majority): the Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 direction to revoke was wrong because there had been material procedural unfairness: the Traffic Commissioner knew that a transport manager nominated by the appellant had a forthcoming public inquiry at which his good repute was to be considered; the appellant did not know this; the Traffic Commissioner did not tell the appellant this and also set the final 鈥榯ime limit鈥� (for expiration of the 鈥減eriod of grace鈥�) a few days before the transport manager鈥檚 pubic inquiry, making it inevitable that the Traffic Commissioner would have material information at the date of its decision (the outcome of the public inquiry) which had not been available to the appellant prior to the time limit; and the Traffic Commissioner then made its direction to revoke on the basis of the outcome of that pubic inquiry (being the disqualification of that transport manager). Revocation direction of the Traffic Commissioner set aside; no further order by the Upper Tribunal, as the Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 revocation direction had been 鈥渟tayed鈥� and, in the interim, the appellant appeared to have put forward an alternative transport manager who satisfied the statutory requirements.