Chee Kei So v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00711 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1274 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 18 May 2026 Before JUDGE HARRIS Between CHEE KEI SO Appellant and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Decision: The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(3) because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding....
2 min de lecture · 313 mots
Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00711 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1274 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 18 May 2026 Before JUDGE HARRIS Between CHEE KEI SO Appellant and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Decision: The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(3) because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding. REASONS 1. The appeal concerns the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence. 2. The Tribunal informed the parties in an order dated 25 March 2026 that it was considering striking out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure rules on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of it succeeding. 3. Under Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2025 a trainee licence remains in force until the day immediately following the trainee’s third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test. 4. The Respondent informed the Tribunal by a form GRC5 dated 28 January 2026 that the Appellant failed their third attempt at the instructional ability test on 27 January 2026. Accordingly, the appeal must fail, because the Appellant is no longer eligible to hold a trainee licence. The Respondent applied for the appeal to be struck out. 5. The Tribunal directed the Appellant on 25 March 2026 to provide any submissions as to why the appeal should not be struck out by 10 April 2026. The directions stated that the appeal would be struck out if no representations opposing the strike out were received. The Appellant provided no submissions in response. 6. I therefore strike the appeal out under Rule 8(3)(c) because I am satisfied there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding.
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence v2.0 (The National Archives). Republication avec attribution. Computational analysis necessite accord complementaire.
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Charles Small v The Information Commissioner & Anor
NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00729 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0054 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 23 April 2026 Decision given on: 20 May 2026 Before JUDGE HEALD MEMBER MURPHY MEMBER SCOTT Between CHARLES SMALL Appellant and (1) THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (2) THE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY Respondents Representation: The Appellant appeared in person The...
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Geoffrey Marney v The Information Commissioner & Anor
NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00714 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0292 First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Information Rights Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 20 May 2026 Before TRIBUNAL JUDGE SOPhiE BUckley TRIBUNAL MEMBER MIRIAM SCOTT TRIBUNAL MEMBER SUSAN WOLF Between GEOFFREY MARNEY Appellant and (1) The Information commissioner (2) EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. REASONS...
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Andrew White v The Information Commissioner
Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00739 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0274/GDPR First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 20 May 2026 Before JUDGE SANGER MEMBER COSGRAVE MEMBER TAYLOR Between ANDREW WHITE Applicant and THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondent Decision: The appeal is Dismissed REASONS Preliminary matters 1. This decision is to be provided to the...