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 not on the operator to demonstrate the contrary. This was clear from the Directive implemented by the Act. Even so that burden had in fact been discharged, and the decision stood, save as to the disqualification of the directors.

Tuckey, Rix LJJ, Wilson J
Times 13-Oct-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1124
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
England and Wales
CitedIn 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 . .
CitedCrompton 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 . .
CitedBryan Haulage Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate (No 1) 2002
(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 . .
CitedA M Richardson t/a D J Travel Consultants v Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions 11-May-2001
(Transport Tribunal) The burden of proof for the purpose of a section 27 revocation issue is on the licence holder to prove its continuing good repute. . .
CitedBryan 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 . .
CitedGudmundsson v Iceland ECHR 1996
A revocation of a licence is not a deprivation of property, but rather a control of its use within the second paragraph of article 1 under a proportionate and Convention compliant scheme . .
CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Licensing, Human Rights

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.230032