Asim Mujeeb v The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

10. The right of appeal from the FTT to the UTT is on any point of law arising from a decision made by the First Tier Tribunal. In R (DLA)3/08 a Tribunal of Commissioners summarised the points of law most often encountered in practice as follows: - “ (a) Making perverse or irrational findings on a matter or matters that were material to the outcome (‘material matters’); (b) Failing to give reasons or any adequate reasons for findings on material matters. (c) Failing to take into account and/or resolve conflicts of fact or opinion on material matters. (d) Giving weight to immaterial matters. (e) Making a material misdirection of law on any material matter. (f) Committing or permitting a procedural or other irregularity capable of making a material difference to the outcome or the fairness of proceedings. (g) Making a mistake as to a material fact which could be established by objective and uncontentious evidence, where the appellant and/or his advisers were not responsible for the mistake, and where unfairness resulted from the fact that a mistake was made.”

11. The applicant has failed to identify any error of Law arising from “ Material Matters” in the Reasons or outcomes sought and as set out in this application. Each case has to be decided on its merits. In this case the Tribunal carefully heard material evidence and considered the papers, information, and evidence on the issues to be substantively determined. On considering all the material evidence the Tribunal refused the Appeal and set out adequate reasons.

12. This application seeks to reargue issues of fact and judgment. These were for the Tribunal to decide, and the conclusions have been explained to the standard required by law. An appeal to the UTT can be made only on a point of law.

13. In accordance with rule 44 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and all the circumstances since this application was first made, I have re- considered whether to review the Tribunal’s Decision but have decided not to undertake a review, as I am not satisfied that there was an error of law in the FTTs’ Decision. The Tribunal carefully considered all the evidence presented by all parties and deliberated thereon before coming to the decision. The Respondents supported their decision in clear and unambiguous terms with reasons.

14. The Tribunal heard the appeal on the basis of the evidence before it and the Appellant, a Litigant in Person, in effect submits that the Respondent and/or the FTT should have sought more detailed information on his personal circumstances before reaching a decision that clearly affects his livelihood and/or that the onus of presenting any such evidence is not solely the responsibility of the Appellant.

15. The Appellant argues that the Tribunal failed to inquire further into these circumstances, despite their materiality which he argues amounts to a failure of procedural fairness. Had the Tribunal requested this evidence, he maintains he could have provided medical records, hospital appointment letters, and other supporting documents to demonstrate the validity of his claim. (This is not accepted as it was not necessarily the veracity of the facts that were in dispute but the effect on the Respondents application of standards regardless of reasons for failing to achieve the grant of a licence). This exercise of discretion is a matter for the Respondents and in all the circumstances of this case the Tribunal is not persuaded it was a material failure or unfair in a material way.

16. It seems that the Applicant, as a Litigant in person, effectively seeks to raise further evidence (rather than issues) that were not raised before the FTT, submitting the Respondent and/or the FTT have acted in a manner that is unfair and in breach of obligations under Rule 2 of the Tribunal Rules and by implication is acting in a manner that is non-compliant with his Article 6 and Article 8 rights including overly rigidly applying the regulatory framework governing trainee licenses (Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1998).

17. Appeals from the FTT to the UTT can only be made if there is an arguable error of law in the FTT’s decision. Rule 42 of the Tribunal’s Rules requires a person requesting permission to appeal to identify an alleged error of law in their application for permission to appeal. It is not possible to appeal simply because you do not agree with the Tribunal’s decision. Conclusions:

18. I have considered whether the grounds of appeal identified above are arguable. This means that there must be a realistic (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of success – see Lord Woolf MR in Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1538 . I have concluded that the grounds are not arguable for the following reasons.

19. The Applicant makes clear in this application that he has a subjective disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision, providing his subjective reasons. He is effectively seeking to reargue issues of fact and judgment both on interpretation of the law and on the facts. He further wishes to introduce evidence in support of what are in effect mitigating circumstances, the tenor of which had been before the Respondents out the outset. The Respondents did have a discretion and exercised it fairly and properly in all the circumstances. I am not persuaded by the Application either through its reasons, or the by outcomes sought and as set out herein, that the Tribunal made any errors pertaining to “Material Matters” of the nature or to the extent required, as set out or as envisaged at Paragraph 10 above. The Applicant further raises an allegation of procedural unfairness on the admission of evidence - but the Applicant has failed to provide any or sufficient grounds that any alleged procedural unfairness could or would have made any material difference in the circumstances to the issues under consideration or to the Decision provided by the FTT.

20. In relation to the issues referred to by the Applicant, they were carefully considered at the outset by the Respondents and ultimately by the Tribunal and for the Respondents in the first instance and ultimately for the Tribunal to decide. The Tribunals’ conclusions have been explained with reasons to the standard required by law.

21. In so far as the Outcomes sought by the Applicant are relevant, where the Tribunal has exercised its discretion, it has done so with fairness and properly in accordance with the Law. It seems to me that the Reasons for appealing as presented are “ fanciful” in that the fundamental principles of mitigation were before the Respondents at the outset and ultimately the Tribunal , and on reflection I am not persuaded in all the circumstances that there is an arguable case that the further evidence sought in support of the mitigating factors relied upon and before the Respondents and the Tribunal would have made any or adequate difference to the outcome, or establish a realistic prospect of establishing that there has been an error of Law in the exercise of its discretion in the FTTs’ decision. It was not the veracity of the mitigating circumstances that determined the outcome of the result.

22. Accordingly, I refuse permission to appeal. Brian Kennedy KC Date: 11 June 2025.