Kudus Fisshation v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 1235 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 01235 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0558
First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Transport
Considered In Chambers
Considered on: 15 October 2025
Determination given on: 15 October 2025
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLAN
Between
Kudus FisshationAppellantREGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentN/A for AppellantN/A for RespondentDecision: The appeal is STRUCK OUTREASONSDate 2025-10-15

Background

[1]The appeal is listed for remote oral hearing using CVP on 23 October 2025.

The pre-hearing Case Management Direction (CMD)

[2]On 24 September 2025 a CMD, prepared by a Legal Officer of the General Regulatory Chamber (‘GRC’) of the First-tier Tribunal, was forward to the parties to the appeal proceedings, including the Appellant.[3]The CMD stated the following:
‘1. The Respondent has informed the Tribunal that you have failed in yourfinal attempt at the Part 3 Test, that is the practical instructional ability and fitness test. 2. The Tribunal can only do what Parliament allows. Parliament has decided that a person cannot hold a trainee licence once they have, on three occasions, failed to pass the instructional ability and fitness test. 3. Therefore, the Tribunal is considering striking out your appeal on the ground of lack of reasonable prospects of your appeal succeeding pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Before the Tribunal considers whether to strike out your appeal Rule 8(4) provides an opportunity for you to provide representations. 4. By no later than 08 October 2025 you should provide to the Tribunal: 4.1 Any representations as to why you consider the Tribunal should not strike out your appeal; OR 4.2 Confirmation you wish to withdraw your appeal. 5. A Registrar, Judge or Legal Officer will consider your appeal again on a date after 08 October 2025.’

A summary of the relevant substantive legal provisions

[4]It is unlawful and a criminal offence to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor vehicle, unless the conditions set out in s. 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are satisfied. The two conditions of most relevance to the appeals we hear are:(i) that the name of the person concerned has been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, (ADIs) or(ii) that the person concerned holds a Trainee Licence, issued under s. 129 of the 1988 Act.[5]To have your name on the Register it is necessary(i) to pass the Qualifying Examination and(ii) to meet the conditions set out in s. 125(3) of the 1988 Act.[6]The Qualifying Examination is in three parts. Part I is a written exam. Part II is a test of driving ability and fitness and Part III consists of a test of instructional ability and fitness. Candidates are allowed three attempts at each part and must attempt each part in numerical order. Failure of any part at the third attempt means that the candidate must start the whole process all over again. All three parts must be passed within 2 years of the date on which the candidate passed Part I. However an attempt at Part III can be made after the 2 year period has expired provided that the booking for that attempt was made within the 2 year period.[7]The emphasis here is my own.

The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (‘the 2005 Regulations’)

[8]Regulation 13 (1) and (2)(d) of the 2005 Regulations provides that:
‘Additional conditions to be satisfied for the grant of a licence 13.—(1) To the conditions as to which the Registrar is required to be satisfied for the grant of a licence under section 129 of the Act, there are added the following conditions which shall have effect subject to paragraph (3) below and to regulation 3(6). (2) The additional conditions are— … (d) that he has not failed the instructional ability and fitness test more than twice since he passed the written examination;’
[9]Once, again, the emphasis here is my own. The jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal 10. Rule 8(3) and (4) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (‘the 2009 rules’), provides: ‘(3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if—(a) the appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the appellant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them;(b) the appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; or(c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant’s case, or part of it, succeeding. … (4) The Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under paragraph (2) or (3)(b) or (c) without first giving the appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out.

Consideration

[11]I have noted, for the purposes of Rule 8(4) of the 2009 Rules, that the CMD, representing(i) the Tribunal’s consideration of the striking out his appeal on the ground of lack of reasonable prospects of his appeal succeeding pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009,(ii) the invitation to him to make representations as to why the appeal should not be struck out and(iii) the opportunity for the Appellant to confirm that he wished to withdraw his appeal, was shared with the Appellant on 24 September 2025. An officer in the GRC has confirmed that here has been no response from the Appellant.[12]As noted above, the Respondent has informed the Tribunal that the Appellant has failed in his final attempt at the Part III test (the test of practical instructional ability and fitness). Accordingly, the extant appeal is bound to fail for the reasons set out in paragraphs 8 and 10 above.[13]My determination, therefore, is that the appeal is STRUCK OUT under Rule 8(3) of the 2009 Rules. Signed Date: 15 October 2025 Judge Kenneth Mullan