AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal Reverse L.A.'s Decision

17th February 1961
Page 43
Page 43, 17th February 1961 — Tribunal Reverse L.A.'s Decision
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?

THE Transport Tribunal last week reversed the decision of the Northern Licensing Authority refusing an application by Tyneside Haulage, Ltd., to add to their A licence three tractors weighing 94 tons in place of three other tractors weighing 7 tons 7 cwt. They had also asked that the variation should include the normal user "Carriage of goods for a Darlington engineering company and a chemical company there," and that their base be described as Darlington instead o'f Newcastle.

Mr. 1. Robey, for the appellants, said there would be no change whatever in the carriage capacity. The old tractors were beyond economic repair and it was highly necessary that they should be replaced.

Dealing with the change of base he said that the entire share capital of I yneside Haulage had been acquired by the shareholders in another transport company, Mr. and Mrs. Metcalfe, of Metcalfe (Transport), Ltd., Darlington. Before the acquisition of the shares the registered office of the company had been at Newcastle, but for the convenience of administration it was decided to transfer it to Darlington.

The Tribunal president, Sir Hubert Hull, said that no change was being sought in the weight of the trailers to be drawn by the tractors and therefore no change was sought in their actual carrying capacity.

The Tribunal did not think that the new normal user enabled the company to carry anything different from the goods that they were already allowed to carry.


comments powered by Disqus