1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202 
High Court ruling puts burden of proof on TCs
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Court of Appeal ruling seems to have changed the way the TCs operate when considering fitness to hold an 0-licence. Mike Jewell reports.
A SURPRISE RULING in the Court of Appeal appears to have shifted an operator's duty to prove it is complying with the 0licensing requirements onto Traffic Commissioners, who will have to prove that it is not.
Senior TC Philip Brown says the ramilications of the recent decision are serious enough for the matter to be discussed at the Traffic Commissioner's annual conference in two weeks' time.
In the meantime the Court of Appeal's ruling means TCs may now have to alter their approach to disciplinary inquiries.
The case being heard referred to Harlow-based Muck It. which was appealing against Eastern TC Geoffrey Simms decision to revoke the company's licence and disqualify it from holding or obtaining one in any Traffic Area for five years.
Simms had held that the company and its transport manager's repute had been lost because of its involvement in Fly-tipping.
Lord Justice Rix said Simms had found"in the balance of probabilities" that transport manager John Huke was controlling Muck It and therefore fully met any burden that might have rested upon him as to the loss of good repute of Huke, and any companies he controlled. This meant Simms' conclusions were justified.
The case appears to have distin guished between an applicant for an 0-licence and an existing licence holder. A tribunal decision in 2000 found that an applicant for a licence must convince a TC that he or she satisfied the requirements in relation to repute, financial standing and professional competence.
Brown has told CM his personal view is that the ruling means the operator holding an existing licence does not have to prove anything; instead, he believes, the onus is now on a TC to find evidence on which to take a decision.
He predicts that the result will lead to "a different set of mental gymnastics" for TCs to get their heads around.