1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
EVIDENCE OF NEED NOT SUFFICIENT T HE appeal by D. R.
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Munson to the Transport Tribunal against the refusal of the Eastern deputy Licensing Authority to grant an additional A licence for four vehicles, has been refused. (See The Commercial Motor, February 26.)
The Tribunal's written reserved judgment stresses that " if a haulier wishes to increase his fleet, he should be in a position to show that his fleet is fully occupied in work falling within his existing licence. It does not appear •to us that the appellant succeeded in doing this Continuing, the Tribunal states: "We doubt whether the evidence of need, being as it is of occasional occurrence, would be sufficient to justify the gran' to the appellant of any more vehicles is any event. But when we find that hit existing fleet could, if solely engaged or the work for which he is licensed, cope with more timber imported through the Felixstowe Docks, we do not feel justified in granting him the further licence whict he seeks. In our view the deputy LA rightly refused the application and the appeal is therefore dismissed."