Does Barratt Decision Apply to Small Men?
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE bludgeon of the Barratt appeal was brought into use by the railways in the North-Western Area, at a Manchester sitting. The effect remains to be seen, for Sir William Hart, Deputy Licensing Authority, reserved his decision on the B-licence renewal application of Matthews and Yates, Ltd., Swinton, It Was stated by Mr. H. S. Brown, dispatch and receiving clerk to the applicant, that the company took its own goods to London and returned with building materials, etc., for J. Gerrard and Son, Ltd., which was now Gerrards Transport, Ltd.
Cross-examined by Mr. H. A. Mais, for the railways, he said that the last return loads brought by his company were at about Christmas time, as latterly the concern had been so busy itself that it could not afford to have its driver waiting for Gerrard's loads,
Mr. Mais submitted that, on the evidence, this case came -within the limitation of the Barratt derision,in which instance the Metropolitan Licensing Authority had found that the Barratt company was subsidizing its transport by means of return loads. In this decision he had been upheld by the Appeal Tribunal. Apparently, here also the applicant was subsidizing his transport in this manner.
Mr. Leslie Walsh, for the applicant, said that the Barratt concern had had 42 C-licence vehicles and entered the haulage business in 1932. Later, 16 vehicles were licensed to carry return loads, leaving the balance of the fleet on C licences. The Metropolitan Authority did not say, on the renewal application, that this practice must stop, but only deleted three vehicles from the fleet of 16.
There was a considerable difference between a concern like 13arratt's, with so many vehicles, and one like the applicant, the whole fleet of which (one vehicle) had been used for bringing return loads for Gerrard's.
The railway companies had not appealed against the renewal of Barratt's B licences.