Walid Nassr v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed REASONS

1. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has not demonstrated any, or any adequate, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances capable of displacing the Respondent’s decision to refuse a third trainee instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s decision was fair, reasonable, proportionate, and fully aligned with the statutory purpose and established policy framework governing trainee licences. Background and Chronology :

1. The Appellant has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register” of “ADI’s”).

2. He previously held two trainee licences , issued between 9 December 2024 and 8 December 2025 (Bundle p.16 (D1)).

3. On 2 November 2025 , the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence (Bundle p.17 (D2)).

4. On 6 November 2025 , the Registrar issued an invitation to provide representations, indicating an intention to refuse the application (Bundle p.18 (D3)).

5. On 7 and 13 November 2025 , the Appellant submitted written representations (Bundle pp.19–23 (D4)).

6. On 3 December 2025 , after considering those representations, the Registrar issued a refusal decision (Bundle p.28 (D5)).

7. The Appellant has appealed within time. Issues:

8. The Tribunal must determine: (a) Whether the Appellant has shown exceptional or extraordinary circumstances such that the Registrar’s refusal of a third trainee licence should be set aside. (b) Whether the Respondent’s decision was unlawful, unreasonable, disproportionate, or contrary to the statutory purpose of Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 . The Appellant’s Case:

8. The Appellant submits that his first licence period was adversely affected by: a) a shortage of pupils; b) a transition from manual to automatic car tuition; c) a period of medical recovery following surgery, resulting in cancellation of his Part 3 test booked for 20 June 2025 (Bundle p.26); d) difficulties in gaining continuous training opportunities.

9. The Appellant argues that these matters prevented effective use of his earlier trainee licences and constituted sufficient reason for granting a third trainee licence. The Registrar’s Case:

10. The Registrar’s statement (Bundle pp.14–16) sets out the following key points: (i) Statutory purpose – trainee licences exist solely to give limited, time-bound practical experience while preparing for qualification. The scheme must not become an alternative to full registration . (ii) Twelve months' opportunity already provided – the Appellant has had two licences , amounting to 12 months’ authorised instruction , which is considered a generous and sufficient period to reach the qualifying standard. (iii) Progress insufficient – the Appellant passed the Part 2 test but failed Part 3 once and cancelled another Part 3 test (Bundle p.30, Results History). (iv) Alternatives exist – trainees may undertake further preparation without a licence , including training with an ADI, private practice without payment, or formal courses. (v) Continuity already preserved – because the Appellant applied before expiry, his second licence remains in force pending appeal , meaning he has continued access to paid instructional experience. Findings of Fact: Having reviewed the bundle in full and considered the representations, the Tribunal finds:

11. The Appellant has had the benefit of two full trainee licence periods , amounting to 12 months , which provides a full and reasonable opportunity to attempt qualification.

12. The Appellant has made limited progress : a) He passed his Part 2 test; b) He failed one Part 3 test (22 September 2025); c) He cancelled a Part 3 test on 20 June 2025 due to short-notice surgery; d) He cancelled earlier Part 2 dates before eventually attempting and passing the test.

13. The Appellant’s medical evidence consists of a fit note stating, “ amended duties ”. The Tribunal accepts it indicates some temporary recovery-related limitations, but it does not establish incapacity to defer, rearrange, or return the second licence or to manage preparation within the 12-month window.

14. The asserted shortage of pupils and transition to automatic instruction do not amount to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances . They are ordinary commercial and logistical challenges faced by many trainees.

15. The Tribunal accepts and adopts the Registrar’s evidence that a refusal does not prevent further test attempts and does not prevent further training through unpaid tuition or professional courses. Discussion and Conclusion:

16. The Tribunal emphasises that Parliament intended trainee licences to be strictly temporary , for the limited purpose of gaining practical experience while progressing towards qualification.

17. The Registrar’s policy, reflected in longstanding GRC authority, is that: a) Two consecutive trainee licences (up to twelve months) usually provide ample opportunity. b) A third licence is exceptional and must be justified by compelling circumstances. c) The licensing framework must avoid becoming a rolling alternative to the proper registration regime.

18. On the evidence, the Appellant has not shown circumstances that reach the threshold of exceptional or extraordinary . a) Commercial issues (pupil availability, vehicle type changes) are routine. b) The medical evidence does not demonstrate incapacity to use the trainee period effectively across the full licence duration. c) His progress in the qualification process has been limited but not for reasons that displace the statutory policy.

19. The Registrar’s reasoning is coherent, evidence-based, proportionate, and squarely aligned with the statutory purpose . The Registrar expressly considered the Appellant’s representations and gave full and rational reasons.

20. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Registrar’s decision meets the public law standards of fairness, legality, rationality and proportionality . Nothing before the Tribunal justifies intervention. Decision:

21. For the reasons above, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal .

22. The decision of the Registrar dated 3 December 2025 is therefore upheld in full . Brian Kennedy KC. 19 March 2026.