Fardin Folad v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 24 October 2025 refusing to grant the Appellant a trainee licence pursuant to section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”).

2. The Appellant was previously provided with two trainee licences and sought a third licence because he had yet to pass the Part 3 examination to become an Approved Driving Instructor. The application was refused by the Registrar. Tribunal’s role in the substantive appeal

3. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

4. When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it. In doing so, it will give appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision is wrong rests with the Appellant, to the balance of probabilities. Application

5. The Registrar has applied to strike out this appeal.

6. Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 stipulates that a trainee licence remains in force until the day immediately following the trainee's third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test.

7. The Registrar states that its records show that the Appellant failed their third and final attempt at the test on 28 January 2026. It is said that any continuing rights are revoked and it is now illegal for the Appellant to give any further driving instruction for reward or payment. Striking out for no reasonable prospect of success

8. Under Rule 8(3)(c) of the 2009 Rules the Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if it considers “there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant’s case, or part of it, succeeding.”

9. The Upper Tribunal has provided guidance on the approach to be taken by this Tribunal when considering whether to strike out a case as having no reasonable prospect of success. In HMRC v Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Limited (in liquidation) [2014] UKUT 0329 (TCC ), the Upper Tribunal stated that: “…an application to strike out in the FTT under rule 8 (3) (c) should be considered in a similar way to an application under CPR 3.4 in civil proceedings (whilst recognising that there is no equivalent jurisdiction in the First-tier to summary judgement under Part 24). The Tribunal must consider whether there is a realistic, as opposed to a fanciful (in the sense of it being entirely without substance) prospect of succeeding on the issue at a full hearing…The Tribunal must avoid conducting a “mini-trial”. As Lord Hope observed in Three Rivers the strike out procedure is to deal with cases that are not fit for a full hearing at all.” Consideration

10. If the Registrar is correct that the Appellant has failed the Part 3 test for the third time, then this appeal must be dismissed. In such circumstances, the appeal has no prospects of success and will be struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)c of the 2009 Rules.

11. Firstly, I give the Appellant an opportunity to counter the Registrar’s contention and provide evidence that they have not taken the Part 3 test for a third time.

12. Within 7 days from the date this document is sent, the Appellant must provide evidence to both the Registrar and the Tribunal that they have not taken the Part 3 test for a further (third) time since lodging this appeal.

13. Failure to provide such evidence within 7 days will lead to this appeal being struck out without further notice, and the hearing listed for 30 March 2026 will be vacated.