Judgment to come
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Special authorizations
However, because each of the five vehicles had a plated weight in excess of 16 tons Mr. Bloggs was reminded that before they could be put into service they would have to be specified on a carrier's licence of the old type —in his case an A or B licence—and that this obligation would remain until the procedure for special authorizations—vulgarly known as quantity licensing—came into effect.
Although Mr. Bloggs duly applied for a variation of his A licence to include the five vehicles he did not immediately accept the necessity. It was stated on his behalf at the subsequent public inquiry that the vehicles would at no time be engaged on work for which a special authorization might in due course become necessary. It was argued from this fact that only an operator's licence was needed and that the legislators could not have been so stupid as to mean anything else.
It is not for this Tribunal to question the wisdom of our legislators. We are here to interpret the law as it stands. The Licensing Authority based his rejection of the argument on section 93 (2) of the 1968 Act which lays down that section 164 of the 1960 Act (requiring operators to hold A, B or C licences) no longer applies to a vehicle for which an operator's licence is required "unless that vehicle is a large goods vehicle".
The five vehicles which are the subject of dispute are all "large goods vehicles" and we can only agree with the Licensing Authority. We also accept his dismissal of the contention on behalf of certain of the objectors that the same vehicle cannot be specified on more than one licence and that therefore every lorry with a plated weight of more than 16 tons is at present operating illegally. Our reasoning (if anyone has the slightest interest) is based on the decision in the case of Sinbad v. Baghdad Railways (Legal Curiosities, Vol. III, Chap 25, page 379 et seq).
We have enough to occupy our minds without going into all that. The Bloggs application was lodged in February 1970 and attracted no fewer than 250 objections. Nearly all came from the holders of newly acquired operators' licences who had previously been restricted to the carriage of their own traffic under C licences. All the objectors had vehicles which were not "large goods vehicles" and for the use of which the oldstyle carriers' licences were not required.
It was mainly contended for the objectors that their new licences which allow them to carry anything they choose had transformed them into persons already providing facilities for the carriage of goods for hire or reward in the district or between the places which the applicant intended to serve. The sheer bulk of the objections certainly pointed to the likelihood that suitable transport facilities were already far "in excess of requirements".
By the time that the public inquiry had lasted three days the deputy Licensing Authority was evidently of the opinion that the description fitted the objectors equally well. After listening to some 127 witnesses all saying more or less the same thing in different words, accents and even languages, he made a long statement to which it is difficult to do justice in a few words.
More than enough
The general purport appeared to be that he had heard more than enough on the subject to last him the rest of his life; that he already had a long backlog of work on applications for operators' licences; that he indicted both Houses of Parliament and a wide range of authorities for incompetence in drafting legislation; that his tea was getting cold; and that he could see no alternative but to refuse the Bloggs application in view of the fact that something like half the population of Britain were queuing up to carry the traffic for which the applicant sought additional tonnage.
Perusal of a transcript of the evidence goes some way towards explaining what might otherwise seem the intemperate language of the deputy Licensing Authority. It would appear that in the course of the proceedings he was asked to take into account almost every statute from Magna Carta to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. At this hearing we are more fortunate. Of the numerous objectors only one has stayed the course and appeared before us as respondent to the appeal lodged by Mr. Bloggs. The main business of Mr. Steptoe is the carriage of a miscellaneous assortment of discarded objects between A . . . and B. The assiduity with which he pursues his sources of supply he now devotes also to finding return loads from B . . . to A. . . His testimony was largely to the effect that if he could not find the traffic then it did not exist.
Powerful arguments
It has been represented to us that the case for the objectors was overwhelming; that they discharged many times over their onus of proof; and that the applicant was unable to produce a single witness from among his customers. These are powerful arguments which make it necessary to examine closely what scope is allowed to a Licensing Authority in exercising his discretion—or what the representative for Mr. Bloggs chose to describe in this case as his indiscretion.
Like many other people the deputy Licensing Authority may have hoped that he had seen the last of the injunction in section 174 (4) of the 1960 Act to have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport. The words ought to be re-examined against the background of the new system of operators' licences.
The needs of persons requiring facilities no longer have the same significance. The present case alone shows the extent to which people are clambering over each other to provide these facilities, so much so indeed that they apparently cannot find the time to appear before this Tribunal in order to pursue their claim.
Persons providing facilities include the operator seeking a licence as well as the objectors. To the unprejudiced observer these latter may well appear like a flock of vultures picking the bones of an applicant who has no means of retaliation. It is not our function to take up this neutral position.
Suffice it to say that it is in no way vital to the interests of the objectors that they carry the traffic. They have managed well enough without it and if it were shared out among the 250 of them it would amount to very little for each. For the appellant on the other hand the vehicles he wishes to have licensed and the traffic he wishes to carry are mutually indispensable.
There can be little doubt also about the decision which will best serve the interests of the public as a whole. If the Licensing Authority believes that the appellant is in every way a fit person to operate an extra five vehicles there should be every encouragement for him to do so. The work he proposes to do with his large goods vehicles might require the use of twice as many smaller vehicles by the objectors. This would mean more congestion and less productivity.
The appeal is allowed.