AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

First Successful Goods-transport Appeal

12th October 1934
Page 42
Page 42, 12th October 1934 — First Successful Goods-transport Appeal
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Costs for the Railways in the Unsuccessful Appeal of L. V. Ward and Co.

ON October 4, the Appeal Tribunal continued to hear, in London, the appeal of L. V. Ward and Co., London, W.C.2, against the refusal of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority to grant an "A" licence, the commencement of the case having been reported in last week's issue. Before the appeal was resumed, Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the, railways, asked leave to call a further witness in connection with the appeals of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. and the London and North-Eastern Railway Co. against the grant of an "A" licence to R. Barr (Leeds), Ltd. This appeal is to be heard at Harrogate on October 10.

Mr. Tyler stated that the reasons given by Mr. Barr for the increase of tonnage were inaccurate, and he sought to call Mr. William Todd, of the Grimsby Park Motor Co., Ltd., to prove the inaccuracy of the statement made at the original hearing.

Mr. Sandelson, representing Mr. Barr, did not resist the calling of this witness, but also asked leave to call a further witness—Mr. Winter—who negotiated a contract between R. Barr (Leeds), Ltd., and the Grimsby Park Motor Co., Ltd, Mr. Sandelson claimed that the statements made at the original hearing were accurate, but that certain features required further elucidation. The Tribunal granted both applications.

The appeal of L. V. Ward and Co. was then continued, and Mr. Tyler called, as a witness, Mr. A. J. Hill, B24 chief commercial clerk for the L.M.S. The witness stated that the railways were prepared, by means of the Green Arrow Service, to guarantee safe delivery, and this scheme had been M. operation for at least 12 months.

Mr. King, for the appellant, said that, whilst the railway companies guaranteed safe delivery, there was no mention in its literature of any redress if this guarantee were 43,,ot fulfilled. The appellant not only guaranteed delivery, but backed it with a monetary payment in the eventuality of his contract not being fulfilled.

Mr. King stated that, in certain circumstances, the appellant's rates were higher than those of the railways. Mr. Hill denied that the Ward concern was able to give superior service in collection from London wharves. Mr. Tyler claimed that the figures supplied by Mr. Ward were both inaccurate and misleading, and that evidence showed that the appellant was cutting sub-contractors' rates and that his plea of having purchased vehicles to improve his services was false.

Since he had purchased his own vehicles, he had still employed subcontractors to an increasing extent. Mr. Tyler argued that, from the figures presented, the appellant was not using his own vehicles to anything like the extent claimed. The railways fulfilled the service equally well, the only differenze being one of rates.

Mr. King said that the figures of monthly returns were not necessarily comparable, because the rates charged may have varied. There was, he argued, no direct evidence that the vehicles had not been used in the manner suggested. He refuted the charges of under-cutting. He claimed that the appellant was fulfilling an existing need and had excellent reasons for expanding his business.

Before announcing the decision of the Tribunal, Mr. E. S. ShrapnelSmith recalled Mr. Ward and questioned him regarding the figures submitted. Mr. Rowand Harker announced that the appeal would be dismissed, and ordered the appellant to pay 20 guineas cost to the respondents, this sum to be divided in equal parts. He said that the Tribunal would announce the reasons for its coming to this decision at its next sifting in London.

The proceedings then continued with the appeal of Mr. W. W. Drinkwater against the decision of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority to attach conditions to a "B" licence. The three railway companies were the respondents in this case, which was decided in favour of the appellant. This was the first successful appeal under the Road and Rail Traffic Act.


comments powered by Disqus