Gary James Holmes v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1077 (GRC)
Background:
[1]This appeal concerns the Respondent's refusal, dated 11 February 2026, of the Appellant's application for a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Appellant is not an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") and has not been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. He has, however, previously held two trainee licences which enabled him to gain practical experience whilst working towards qualification.[2]The Respondent refused the application on the basis that the Appellant had already received the benefit of two trainee licences, amounting to approximately twelve months of licensed instructional experience, and had not provided evidence of lost training time capable of justifying the grant of a further trainee licence. The Respondent maintained that the trainee licence regime is intended to provide limited practical experience pending qualification and is not a mechanism by which an individual may continue indefinitely in paid instruction.[3]The Appellant appealed that decision. During the course of the appeal, however, further events occurred which altered the position materially. The Respondent subsequently applied to strike out the appeal pursuant to rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 on the basis that the appeal no longer had any reasonable prospect of success.Chronology:
[1]The Appellant passed Part 1 of the ADI qualification process on 15 August 2024 and Part 2 on 17 October 2024.[2]Two trainee licences were subsequently granted. The papers indicate periods of trainee licensing commencing in January 2025 and July 2025 respectively, providing approximately twelve months of licensed teaching experience.[3]On 26 June 2025 the Appellant sat Part 3 of the ADI qualification process and was unsuccessful. He sat a further Part 3 test on 3 December 2025 and was again unsuccessful.[4]On 11 December 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence.[5]By correspondence dated 12 December 2025 the Respondent informed the Appellant that refusal was under consideration and invited representations, specifically requesting independent evidence of any lost training time relied upon.[6]On 23 December 2025 the Appellant submitted representations. He contended that delays in obtaining Part 3 test appointments, said to stem from examiner shortages in Norwich, had adversely affected his progress. No independent evidence of lost training time was provided.[7]On 11 February 2026 the Respondent refused the application.[8]The Appellant appealed that refusal.[9]The Respondent's response dated 5 June 2026 noted that the Appellant had a further Part 3 test scheduled for 8 July 2026 and observed that an unsuccessful outcome would fundamentally affect the viability of the appeal.[10]On 8 July 2026 the Appellant undertook what was his third Part 3 attempt and was unsuccessful.[11]On 9 July 2026 the Respondent made a GRC 5 application to strike out the appeal pursuant to rule 8(3)(c).[12]The matter came before the Tribunal for hearing. The Appellant was not in attendance. The Tribunal was satisfied that notice of hearing had been properly given and proceeded to determine the Respondent's application in the Appellant's absence. The Tribunal considered the written submissions from the Respondent in support of the application.Issues Joined Between the Parties:
[13]At the time the appeal was brought, the principal issue between the parties was whether the Respondent ought properly to have exercised discretion to grant a further trainee licence in circumstances where the Appellant asserted that delays in obtaining Part 3 test appointments had impeded his progress towards qualification.[14]The Appellant's position was that he had complied fully with the trainee licence requirements, undertaken substantial training, and been disadvantaged by delays beyond his control. He contended that refusal of the licence adversely affected both his livelihood and his ability to continue towards qualification.[15]The Respondent's position was that the Appellant had already received the benefit of two trainee licences, had failed Part 3 on two occasions before the refusal decision, had not produced independent evidence of lost training time, and, following the failure of the third Part 3 attempt, no longer had any statutory basis upon which a trainee licence could be granted. Accordingly, the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck out.Legal Framework:
[16]Section 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits paid driving instruction unless an individual is either an Approved Driving Instructor entered on the register or the holder of a valid trainee licence granted under section 129.[17]Section 129 establishes the trainee licence regime. The purpose of that regime is to permit practical instructional experience whilst an individual works towards qualification as an ADI. It does not create an ongoing entitlement to teach for reward indefinitely.[18]Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 provides, in substance, that a trainee licence ceases upon a trainee's third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test.[19]Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 permits the Tribunal to strike out proceedings where there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case succeeding. The power is a significant one and must be exercised with care. However, where the Tribunal is satisfied that, even taking an appellant's case at its highest, the proceedings are incapable of resulting in any practical or effective remedy, the Rule permits the Tribunal to bring the proceedings to an end without a full substantive determination.[20]In exercising that power, the Tribunal must act consistently with the overriding objective and ensure procedural fairness to all parties.Discussion:
[21]This is one of those relatively unusual appeals in which subsequent events have overtaken the substantive dispute that originally gave rise to the proceedings.[22]At the time the appeal was lodged there was at least an arguable issue as to whether the Respondent ought to have exercised discretion differently in light of the Appellant's assertions concerning delays in obtaining Part 3 examination appointments. The Tribunal makes no finding on that issue because it is unnecessary to do so for the purposes of determining the present application.[23]The decisive development is the Appellant's subsequent failure of the Part 3 instructional ability test on 8 July 2026. The Respondent relied upon that fact in its strike-out application and in submissions before the Tribunal. Although the Appellant did not attend the hearing, he was given notice of both the hearing and the application. He did not provide any evidence challenging the Respondent's assertion that he had failed his third Part 3 attempt. I am satisfied that it is fair and consistent with the overriding objective to determine the strike-out application in his absence.[24]Once the third unsuccessful Part 3 attempt occurred, the statutory basis for the continuation of the trainee licence regime ceased to apply. The purpose of a trainee licence is to facilitate progress towards qualification. Following a third unsuccessful attempt, that purpose can no longer be achieved.[25]Even if the Tribunal were now to conclude that the Respondent ought to have reached a different decision in February 2026, no effective remedy could be granted. A successful appeal could not result in the grant of an operative trainee licence following the statutory consequences flowing from the third unsuccessful Part 3 attempt.[26]In those circumstances, the appeal has become academic. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of the Appellant obtaining any practical relief through these proceedings. Whatever view might be taken of the Respondent's original decision, the subsequent failure of the Appellant's third Part 3 attempt means that the appeal can no longer produce a practical legal outcome.[27]Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that this is a case falling within rule 8(3)(c).Impact of the Strike Out:
[28]The Tribunal has considered the consequences of striking out the appeal. The effect of this decision is that the Tribunal does not determine the substantive merits of the Respondent's original refusal decision of 11 February 2026. The Appellant therefore does not obtain a determination as to whether the Respondent ought to have exercised discretion differently at that time.[29]However, as explained above, strike out is justified because the appeal has been overtaken by subsequent events. The question is no longer whether the Appellant originally raised an arguable challenge to the refusal decision, but whether there remains any realistic prospect of obtaining effective relief through these proceedings. Following the Appellant's third unsuccessful Part 3 attempt, no such relief remains available.[30]The Tribunal has considered whether any useful purpose would be served by allowing the appeal to proceed to a full determination. It is satisfied that it would not. Even if the appeal were ultimately successful, the Tribunal could not now grant relief resulting in the issue or continuation of a trainee licence because the statutory consequences of the third unsuccessful Part 3 attempt have already taken effect.[31]Continuing the proceedings would therefore require the Tribunal to determine a dispute that is academic and incapable of producing any practical outcome for either party. The overriding objective is not served by requiring the parties and the Tribunal to devote further resources to litigation which can no longer affect the Appellant's legal position.Conclusion and Decision:
[32]For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the Appellant's failure of the Part 3 instructional ability test on 8 July 2026 has overtaken and extinguished the practical dispute which originally arose from the Respondent's refusal of a third trainee licence.[33]There is no longer any effective remedy which the Tribunal could grant, even were it to conclude that the Respondent's original decision should not have been made.[34]As explained above, I therefore conclude that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.[35]Accordingly, I grant the Respondents application to Strike Out the Appeal. Judge Brian Kennedy KCJudge of the First-tier TribunalGeneral Regulatory Chamber 17 July 2026.