Judgments May Have to be Longer
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IT would be inappropriate, at this I stage, to comment on the merits or demerits of the case that is currently before the Court of Appeal—Siddle C. Cook Ltd., Sunter Brothers Ltd. and A. Stevens (Haulage) Ltd., versus R.A.H Transporters Ltd.—contesting the Transport Tribunal's judgment which removed a length limitation imposed by the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, on trailers operated by R.A.H. Transporters. (Reported in last week's issue.) Mr. E. S. Fay, Q.C. (for the appellants) had quite a formidable task before the appeal judges when he opened his case, especially when arguing grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal:
"3. That trailers constructed for the conveyance of indivisible loads of exceptional length are by reason of such construction vehicles of a particular type for the purposes of Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and the said Tribunal was wrong in law in not so holding, 4. That articulated vehicles (including the trailer portions thereof) constructed for the conveyance of indivisible loads of exceptional length are, by reason of such construction, vehicles of a particular type for the purposes of Part IV of the Act, and the said Tribunal was wrong in law in not so holding.
5. That articulated vehicles (including trailer portions) of which the overall length exceeds 35 feet and Which are exempted from the requirements of regulation 6(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, by reason only of proviso (b) thereto arc, by reason of their length, vehicles of a particular type for the purposes of Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and the said Tribunal was wrong in law in not so holding."
The Court's interpretation of these
sections is of vital importance to steel hauliers in the north, and to Mr. Hanlon.
Towards the end of the case Lord Justice Sellers, the president of the court, asked: " Why doesn't the form have a space in it for length, width or dimensions, or why doesn't it say Specify dimensions '?" Mr. Fay replied that the form had been in use since the early days, when things were simpler, and he was not sure whether there was any jurisdiction to ask for something in greater detail.
Whatever the outcome of the case, it is possible that the Court of Appeal may direct the Tribunal to give more detailed indications as to how it arrives at its decisions,
Mr. Fay particularly criticized the Tribunal's judgment in the R.A.H. Transporters case. "One of the difficulties of this kind of short decision is that one does not know by which path they reached their decision," he said.