High Court rejects 'bias' claims against two TCs and VOSA
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Michael Jewell
THE HIGH COURT has rejected allegations that Senior Traffic Commissioner (lc) Philip Brown (pictured), North Western TC Beverley Bell and VOSA had been biased and conspired against the interests of Al-Le Logistics.
In April 200g, Brown revoked the Queenborough. Kent company's 0-licence, disqualifying director Alan Bennett from holding an 0-licence for 12 months and holding that transport manager Michael Godden had lost his repute because of drivers' hours and tachograph offences.
On appeal, the Tribunal quashed the TC's decision and remitted the matter for a re-hearing. In May 2009, the TC decided a further public inquiry (PI) should be held by a Deputy TC.
In June 2009, Beverley Bell revoked the licence held by Al-Le Logistics Northern, holding that transport manager Christopher Bennett had lost his repute.
Al-Le Logistics, Alan Bennett, Lee Bennett and Michael Godden sought a judicial review of those decisions and claimed damages against VOSA. They also challenged Brown's decision to hold a second PI, alleging: breach of legitimate expectation, incorrect burden of proof, lack of disclosure and denial of natural justice. They alleged Bell was a participant in the actual bias. And against VOSA, they alleged abuse of process and involvement in systematic bias and denial of natural justice.
Granting permission for a judicial review of Brown's decision for a second P1, Deputy Judge David Holgate QC said he did so on the basis the TC should not himself have taken that decision. He considered the circumstances had amounted to apparent or unconscious bias by Brown.
Rejecting the allegations against Bell. Holgate said the claimants had not made any challenge to her decision in the case involving the Northern thin. It would seem the criticisms against her were made to support the and bias bias allegations.
Rejecting the damages claim against VOSA, Holgate said the claimants had not given satisfactory particulars of the basis of their claims.