Lions Logistics Limited v Compas75 Limited (T): [2026] UKUT 66 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Ovey on 10 February 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The Upper Tribunal decided that the Traffic Commissioner had been entitled to take the view that the Appellant was a person who had an interest for the purposes of s.36 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 in the Traffic Commissioner’s decision whether or not to grant a variation application made by the Respondent but that there was no breach of a procedural requirement enabling the Traffic Commissioner to set aside the decision on an application under s.36 for review.
The Appellant had complained to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner and to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“the DVSA”) that for a substantial period of time the Respondent used an unauthorised operating centre. The DVSA investigated but took no further action in the light of an application by the Respondent to vary its licence by adding the relevant premises. The Applicant wrote to the Traffic Commissioner (“the TC”) asking him to take into account the Applicant’s representations, including representations about the operating centre. The TC decided to grant the variation application, while at the same time sending a strong formal warning to the Respondent about the unauthorised use. When the Applicant became aware of the decision on the variation application, it applied to the TC for a review of his decision under s.36 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The TC decided that the Applicant was a person who had an interest in the decision for the purposes of s.36(2) but was not a person able to make a statutory objection going to repute and had not sought to make statutory representations on environmental matters. The TC further concluded that there was no failure to comply with a procedural requirement for the purposes of s.36(1).
The Appellant appealed, contending that the TC could act on information relating to matters going to repute and had failed to give proper consideration to the extensive breaches of the requirements relating to operating centres, thereby failing to comply with a procedural requirement. The Appellant argued that the TC ought to have called the Respondent to a public inquiry where the unauthorised use could be considered fully. The Respondent was made a party to the appeal and opposed it, arguing that the Appellant did not fall within s.36(2) and there had been no failure to comply with a procedural requirement.
The Upper Tribunal decided that:
-
s.36(2) gave the TC power to decide who was a person who had an interest in the decision, that the power was a discretionary power exercisable by the TC in the course of exercising general regulatory responsibilities and that the interest must relate to promoting good decision-making by the TC and be a specific interest greater than the interest of either members of the public generally or of all those involved in the transport industry;
-
it was open to the TC to decide that the Appellant was a person who had an interest in the decision, although the Upper Tribunal reached that conclusion by a different route;
-
there was no failure to comply with a “procedural requirement imposed by or under any enactment”, an expression which means a requirement expressly imposed by the legislation. That is also the view expressed in West Midlands Machinery Services Ltd. T/2021/045. [2021] UKUT 267 (AAC).
The Upper Tribunal also took the view that if there had been a procedural requirement to give proper consideration to the representations made by the Appellant, the Appellant would not have succeeded in showing non-compliance. The representations made were capable of going to good repute, but the Upper Tribunal did not have all the documentation before the TC and was not in a position to say that the TC had not had the information necessary to make a proper decision or that, having regard to the terms of Annex 4 to Statutory Document 10 and applying the test in Bradley Fold Travel Limited and Peter Wright v. Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, [2011] R.T.R. 13, his decision was plainly wrong.