Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Substituted Decision Notice: The Appellant is granted an extension to his Second training licence or in the alternative a Third training licence (which alternative is at the discretion of the Respondent under Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ) until 09 January 2025.
      Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ('the Act') prohibits the giving of instruction paid for by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor's name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, or he is the holder of a current licence issued under Section 129(1) of the Act.
      The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.
      Two licences under Section 129 of the Act were granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and were valid from 22 May 2023 to 21 May 2024 (D1) .
      After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. He provides no evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils and has had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months. If he was unable to use his licence, he could have returned it as advised on gov.uk and the letter accompanying his licences.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.