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 possession within art 1 of the Convention. The Act did not define what was considered to be ‘of good repute’. It was necessary to keep in proportion the loss of the licence, and the seriousness of the lost element of reputation. The tribunal had failed to keep that balance and the tribunal’s order was revoked.
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Mantell, Lord Justice Mance
Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 64, Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] RTR 517
Bailii
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 27(1), European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
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 . .
Cited – Bryan Haulage Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate (No2) [Appeal 217/2002] 1-Apr-2003
(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 . .
Cited – Malik, Regina (on the Application of) v Waltham Forest PCT and Secretary of State for Health Admn 17-Mar-2006
The doctor had been suspended on full pay whilst allegations against him were investigated. He claimed that the suspension infringed his human rights and that his licence to practice was a possession.
Held: At the disciplinary proceedings: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Licensing, Transport, Human Rights
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.178885
