Malcolm Kidd v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background to Appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 19 th April 2024 to revoke the Appellant’s licence, as he was no longer fit and proper.

2. The Registrar’s reasons for revocation , in summary, were that the Appellant failed to provide details to the Traffic Commissioner which led to his disqualification as a Transport Manager. The refusal to provide details was of such note that the Appellant’s licence had to be revoked.

3. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision. Appeal to the Tribunal

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 15 th July 2024, indicates it would be wrong to hold the previous events against him when he has worked hard to qualify as an ADI. He indicated that he should have ensured that greater checks, and more action should have been taken by him in relation to a company where he was a walk in transport manager, but due to a serious of issues he was hampered from doing his job properly. He did not provide details of what he didn’t assist the Traffic Commissioner about.

5. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that after a public enquiry the Appellant lost his “good repute” as a result of multiple counts of non-compliance with rules that posed a significant risk to members of the public. The Registrar came to the view that an individual who had acted in that way, and who had lost his reputation, could no longer be licensed as the Registrar would not be ensuring public safety. Mode of Determination

6. The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.

7. The Appellant attended, and was unrepresented

8. The Respondent was represented by Andrew Heard.

9. The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 65 pages.

10. The Tribunal looked at the circumstances of this case Hearing

11. Just before the Hearing commenced the Respondent provided an application to strike out the Appeal, as the 2 year period from the Appellant completing his Part 1 assessment lapsed on 23 rd August 2025, and therefore the Appellant could not undertake any Part 3 assessments.

12. The Appellant received the same information and agreed that he was now time barred from any further Part 3 examinations, unless and until he restarted the process. He agreed that there was now no merit in his appeal and that it should be struck out.

13. The Appellant was given the opportunity to have the Appeal heard, but agreed that it was perhaps better for him to accept the strike out application and then to restart the process making full disclosure of the issues that were to be argued in the Appeal

14. Accordingly the Appeal is struck out by agreement. HHJ David Dixon Date: 28 th August 2025