Fatema Zakir v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is the Tribunal’s determination of the Respondent’s application, made by GRC5 on 28 January 2026, seeking that the appeal be struck out pursuant to rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the Rules”). The Respondent submits that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success because the Appellant’s trainee instructor licence ceased to have effect following her third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test on 27 January 2026.

2. The appeal had been listed for an oral hearing on 23 March 2026. That hearing has been cancelled by the appellant who was contacted by the Tribunal Administration on 23 March 2026, when she confirmed she had failed the Part 3 instructional ability test on 27 January 2026. The Appellant had taken no steps in relation to the Tribunal’s Case Management Directions issued on 12 March 2026. Background:

3. The Appellant had appealed under section 133 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against the Respondent’s refusal to grant her a third trainee instructor licence. She stated in her GRC1 that she wished to continue training towards her final Part 3 attempt.

4. The Respondent’s GRC5 application relied on Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005, which provides that a trainee licence “remains in force until the day immediately following the trainee’s third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test”. The Respondent produced evidence that the Appellant failed her third attempt on 27 January 2026. It follows that any continuing entitlement to hold a trainee licence ceased on 28 January 2026.

5. The Tribunal’s Directions of 12 March 2026 required the Appellant to file and serve a written response within seven days, addressing (a) whether she accepted or disputed the factual assertions in the GRC5, (b) her grounds (if any) for opposing strike-out, and (c) any evidence she intended to rely upon. The Directions included an express warning that failure to comply might result in strike-out under rule 8(3)(a) and/or 8(3)(c).

6. No response has been received. The Appellant has therefore failed to comply with Directions that went to the heart of the issues raised by the strike-out application. Applicable Law:

7. Rule 8(3)(c) provides that the Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of proceedings if it “has no reasonable prospect of success”.

8. Rule 8(3)(a) further permits strike-out where a party “fails to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the party to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings”.

9. Regulation 14(b) of the 2005 Regulations provides that a trainee licence ceases immediately following a third unsuccessful attempt at the Part 3 instructional ability test. Once the licence has expired, the Tribunal cannot extend it, reinstate it, or confer any continuing entitlement. Discussion:

10. On the material before the Tribunal, the Respondent’s evidence that the Appellant failed her third attempt on 27 January 2026 is uncontradicted. The Appellant has had every opportunity, by way of the Directions of 12 March 2026, to dispute or clarify the factual position. She has not done so.

11. If the Appellant did fail her third attempt on 27 January 2026, then Regulation 14(b) operates automatically. The Tribunal has no residual discretion to revive or extend an expired trainee licence. In those circumstances, the appeal cannot succeed in law.

12. In addition, the Appellant has failed to comply with a peremptory direction that expressly warned her of the consequences of non-compliance. She has provided no reason for her non-engagement or for cancelling the hearing.

13. The combined effect is that (a) the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success, and (b) the Appellant has failed to comply with a mandatory direction, thus separately engaging rule 8(3)(a). Conclusion:

14. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that this appeal has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of rule 8(3)(c). The Appellant’s non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Directions provides an additional and independent basis for strike-out under rule 8(3)(a).

15. Accordingly, the appeal is Struck Out. Right to Apply for Reinstatement:

16. Under rule 8(5)– (7), the Appellant may apply for the reinstatement of the appeal. Any such application must be made in writing within 28 days of the date this Decision is sent and must set out the reasons relied upon.

17. The parties are at Liberty to apply. Judge Brian Kennedy KC 23 March 2026