(date?) (Transport Tribunal) ‘In applying the Crompton case it seems to us that the traffic commissioners and the Tribunal have to reconsider their approach. In cases involving mandatory revocation it has been common for findings to have been made along the lines of ‘I find your conduct to be so serious that I have had to conclude that you have lost your repute: accordingly, I have also to revoke your licence because the statute gives me no discretion.’ The effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is that this two-stage approach is incorrect and that the sanction has to be considered at the earlier stage. Thus the question is not whether the conduct is so serious as to amount to a loss of repute but whether it is so serious as to require revocation. Put simply, the question becomes ‘is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?’ On appeal, the Tribunal must consider not only the details of cases but the overall result.’
[Appeal 217/2002]
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Crompton T/A David Crompton Haulage v Department of Transport North Western Area CA 31-Jan-2003
The claimant challenged the revocation of his operator’s licence. At an earlier tribunal hearing concerning his licence, he had behaved in a loutish manner, and the revocation was based on that behaviour.
Held: The operator’s licence is a . .
Cited by:
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.231174