1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240 
Firm 'being sacrificed on high altar of BRB and BRS principles'
Page 78
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BREACHES of a declaration of intent which the applicant knew to be binding were strongly criticized by counsel for the Transport Holding Company (BRS) and the British Railways Board at the Transport Tribunal last week.
H.B. Transport Ltd., represented by Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, appealed against a decision of the South Eastern deputy LA who refused a two-vehicle A-licence renewal bid in the terms sought.
Mr. R. Yorke appeared for BRS and Mr. G. Mercer represented British Railways Board.
Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said an application in November 1965 was opposed by British Railways, BRS and two private cbjectors. BR and BRS withdrew their objections during the hearing and the deputy LA granted a licence for a shorter period. The decision was put in writing, though the appellant was not aware of this until a subsequent hearing in 1967.
The case in the lower court was "rather heated" said counsel, but the work done by his Client was no loss to the railways or to BRS. The respondents' attitude was appropriate to that of a state trial of high principle or a TV drama.
A simple matter of a family haulage business wishing to add one named customer for whom one of .the respondents could not carry goods and the other did not had been over-dramatized. His client was being sacrificed on the high altar of the principles of the BRB and BRS.
There had been an apparent refusal at the public inquiry in January but in February a grant was published authorizing: "Fruit and vegetables, tinned foodstuffs, all imported through Sheerness Harbour, all within 200 miles".
The "singular history" was very involved, with two notices of appeal being lodged and correspondence between the LA's office and the Tribunal. H.R. Transport sought to include in its normal user work for Blue Cap Foods (Kent) Ltd. and Citex (London) Ltd., while a large interest in Sheerness harbour development would also require much road transport.
Mr. R. Yorke said the THC welcomed fair competition but insisted that statements of intention made must be honoured. They had been broken within a month of the grant of a licence and the LA should have been informed immediately a significant departure from normal user occurred.
Mr. G. Mercer said the earnings figures for two vehicles were poor. If regularity of work was accepted as a criterion any haulier carrying a bottle of whisky at Christmas would be entitled to include whisky on his normal user. There was no evidence to justify inclusion of Blue Cap in the normal user.
The president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, said the Tribunal's reasons and orders would be reserved but on the merits of the case the deputy LA was right to refuse to grant a licence on the declaration of normal user made to him. If the appellant would make a declaration of fruit and vegetables and canned goods imported into Sheerness for delivery within 200 miles the Tribunal could instruct the LA accordingly. Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said he had to take instructions. It was highly unlikely H.B. Transport would accept this; it would probably go into liquidation.