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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244 
Sutton Appeals
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TWO appeals by Sutton and Son (St. Helens) Ltd., came before the Transport Tribunal in London on Tuesday, when judgment was reserved. The first —against a grant to A. S. Jones and Co. Ltd. was withdrawn. The second, against the N.W. deputy Authority's decision to grant six, instead of eight, dual-purpose vehicles for use with collapsible tanks was modified by agreement with the respondents. This appeal in two parts concerned quantum and normal user, the deputy Authority having granted the six vehicles with a bulk liquids user instead of a general goods user. In agreement with the respondents, who included British Railways, A. S. Jones and eight other hauliers, the second appeal was confined to normal user, and the respondents withdrew.
For Sutton and Son, Mr. J. Booth said that in 1962 five dual-purpose vehicles had been granted to the company with a " general goods" user; but when the company applied to add a further eight, the Authority indicated that he would refuse the application unless the user was amended to bulk liquids. This, Mr. Booth asserted, defeated the whole purpose of the vehicles.
His clients had made a qualified, interim amendment to the user, and they wanted the Tribunal to say that the Authority had been wrong to describe the user as bulk liquids.