Tomsyl Ltd (T): [2025] UKUT 273 (AAC)

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Citron on 14 August 2025.

• From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
• Published: 18 September 2025

• Categories: Transport - Traffic Commissioner and DoE (NI) Appeals
• Sub-categories: Transport - Traffic Commissioner and DoE (NI) Appeals - Decisions and reasons, Transport - Traffic Commissioner and DoE (NI) Appeals - Revocation, Suspension and Curtailment and Transport - Traffic Commissioner and DoE (NI) Appeals - Transport Managers
• Judges: Citron, Z
• Decision date: 14 August 2025

Read the full decision in UA-2024-001781-T.

Judicial Summary

The appellant removed its transport manager and then asked for a six month period of grace to rectify the situation and appoint a new one. The Traffic Commissioner refused the application for a period of grace, and the appellant’s licence was revoked. The appellant had provided details of its efforts to recruit a new transport manager, but the Traffic Commissioner, in explaining its decision, simply stated that the appellant had not provided “tangible evidence” to indicate a positive outcome. The Upper Tribunal decided that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was inadequately explained: it was not clear if the Traffic Commissioner accepted the appellant’s evidence (and if it did not, why?); and if the Traffic Commissioner did accept the appellant’s evidence, it was unclear why there were not reasonable prospects for a new transport manager to be appointed in the course of the period of grace.

Published 18 September 2025