Catch22Bus Limited: [2017] UKUT 470 (AAC); [2019] AACR 29

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Levenson on 4 December 2017.

• From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
• Published: 11 December 2017
• Last updated: 19 October 2021 — See all updates

• Categories: Transport - Traffic Commissioner and DoE (NI) Appeals
• Sub-categories: Transport - Traffic Commissioner and DoE (NI) Appeals - Repute & Fitness
• Judges: Levenson, H
• Decision date: 4 December 2017

Read the full decision in T/72/2016 [2019] AACR 29ws

Judicial Summary

Traffic Commissioners – operators’ licences – conduct – disqualification – reputation - surveillance

The first appellant company, operated bus services in Blackpool and the second appellant was its managing director and sole shareholder. In 2012 the company became the subject of an investigation by the Vehicle and Operator Services Authority. Following a public inquiry, in 2015 the Senior Traffic Commissioner, in her capacity as Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England area, decided that the company had lost its ‘good repute’ under section 17(1) of the Public Passengers Vehicle Act 1981, and that the second appellant and the company should be disqualified from holding a Public Service Vehicle (‘PSV’) operator’s licence for a period of seven years. The appellants appealed to the Upper Tribunal which allowed the appeal by consent and ordered that the case be remitted to a different Traffic Commissioner or Deputy Traffic Commissioner. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner appointed to conduct the fresh hearing found that the company had indeed lost its ‘good repute’ under Public Passenger’s Vehicle Act 1981 and that the second appellant should be disqualified from holding or obtaining a PSV operator’s licence for a period of 12 months. Central to the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s consideration of the case was footage of the Senior Traffic Commissioner filmed without her knowledge, at the instigation of the second appellant using the services of a private investigator. This footage was made into a video by a third party with commentary written by the second appellant and accused the Senior Traffic Commissioner of hypocrisy in respect of her driving in her own personal car which he uploaded to the internet on YouTube. The appellants appealed to the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner. The Upper Tribunal decided that the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was entitled to take the video into account as relevant to the good repute issue and dismissed the appeal. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on the basis that the Upper Tribunal had erred in deciding that the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was entitled to take the video into account in his decision.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that:

1. the video had targeted the Senior Traffic Commissioner in consequence of her performing her functions within the regulatory regime in having made a decision adverse to the second appellant. His conduct had showed animosity, resentment and a tendency to take the law into his own hands. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner and the Upper Tribunal had correctly decided that those were matters that were quite obviously relevant to the good repute questions being considered by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, and clearly relevant to the second appellant’s fitness to hold a licence. The facts had demonstrated that the second appellant’s conduct had been an affront to the regulatory system rather than merely to the particular individual concerned.

2. the conclusion of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner and the Upper Tribunal that the second defendant had intended to create an intimidatory atmosphere for others involved in traffic adjudication and that his conduct constituted a direct attack on the very essence of an independent adjudicatory process, had been entirely justified on the facts. In light of the findings made by the Upper Tribunal and the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, as to the seriousness of what had occurred, and its implications for future conduct, the decision that the company had lost its good repute and that the second appellant should be disqualified from holding or obtaining a Public Service Vehicle operator’s licence for 12 months, could not possibly be described as irrational. [Paragraphs 39 and 41]

Published 11 December 2017
Last updated 19 October 2021 + show all updates

1. 19 October 2021

   Decision selected for reporting as [2019] AACR 29

2. 11 December 2017

   First published.