AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A win or a place!

15th July 1966, Page 36
15th July 1966
Page 36
Page 36, 15th July 1966 — A win or a place!
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?

ALEGAL submission by Mr. J. S. Lawton that the grant of a B licence in terms identical with those of an A licence which was sought and refused, invalidated an appeal against the refusal of the A licence was rejected by the Transport Tribunal on Tuesday.

Mr. Lawton appeared for the respondents, British Road Services Ltd. and J. Howarth and Son Ltd. The appellants, H. Hewitt and Co. (Haulage) Ltd. of Bacup, were represented by Mr. J. A. Backhouse. They appealed against the refusal by the North Western deputy Licensing Authority of a 44-ton flat vehicle to work for Dune and Miller Ltd. and associated companies in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Kidderminster.

Mr. Backhouse said he had urged the deputy LA at the public inquiry to deal with both applications together, but they were separate cases separately published in the same copy of A's and D's.

The Tribunal president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, ruled that the appeal should proceed. At the end of the hearing he said the Tribunal would give a written judgment.

Mr. Backhouse submitted that Mr. Jolliffe had been influenced in his decision by Tribunal judgments following the Merchandise Transport appeal court verdict. In effect he had decided that with only one effective customer Hewitt was entitled as a matter of law to a B licence and not an A licence. He had taken several negative rulings and given them a positive meaning. There were return loads available from Kidderminster to Heckmondwike from associated companies of Dune and Miller, and Hewitt wished to utilize capacity.

Mr. Lawton contended it was absurd to say the work available could be done only by A-licensed vehicles. Empty running was not excessive and Hewitt was making a profit. There was no positive evidence in the transcript of return loads; much of the supporting evidence was qualified, and the respondents had a valid fear of undisclosed abstraction of long-distance traffic. Hewitt, said Mr. Lawton, was out for "a win or a place".


comments powered by Disqus