(Transport Tribunal) The tribunal set out the correct approach to findings involving revocation of an operator’s licence (or disqualification): ‘However, in order to take action under s. 26 or to make a finding of loss of good repute under s. 27 or make an order of disqualification of directors under s. 28 of the Act, the Traffic Commissioner was obliged to make an assessment of the nature, number and gravity of the breaches of regulations revealed by Mr Prime’s investigations and whether there was any evidence of instruction, encouragement or acquiescence on the part of the Appellant . . It is a further requirement that the Traffic Commissioner consider the weight, if any, to be attached to the Appellant’s general record, performance, reputation and enforcement history.’
[TT 1 of 2002]
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – In the matter of Anglorom Trans (UK) Limited; Paramount Kitchens Ltd CA 30-Jul-2004
Laddie J, after citing the Bryan Haulage case, explained the need to consider separately the positions of operator and transport manager: ‘If a company breaches the rules set down by the Act, for example if it or its directors are convicted of a . .
Cited – Muck It Ltd v Merritt and others; traffic Commissioner v Muck It Ltd and Others, Secretary of State for Transport intervening CA 15-Sep-2005
The applicant appealed revocation of its operator’s licence.
Held: The Commissioner had erred. When revoking an existing goods vehicle licence the burden was on the commissioner to establish that there was good cause to revoke the licence, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Licensing
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.231173
