Tribunal Decide Five Appeals : Ruling on Unopposed Cases
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DECISIONS were given by the Transport Tribunal in Edinburgh, last week, on four appeals reported on this page.
A reserved decision was also given verbally on an appeal by the British Transport Commission against a grant by the Scottish Deputy Licensing Authority to Charles Alexander and Partners (Transport), Ltd., and a written judgment was expected to be issued late this week. The hearing was reported in The Commercial Motor last week.
One case was not reached and will be relisted.
One of the principles reiterated by the Tribunal (in the McGillivray appeal) was that the absence of an objection did not automatically entitle the applicant to a grant, although it was a point in his favour.
Illegal Operation : Appeal Fails
BY operating A-licensed vehicles from Ardrossan, Ayrshire, when they were supposed to be based. in England. Winston Blamire, Longon, near Preston, had apparently been guilty of illegal operation. This was decided by the Tribunal when they dismissed Mr. Blamire's appeal against the Scottish Licensing Authority's refusal to grant him additions to his A licence.
Mr. W. M'Ilwraith, for Mr. Blamire. said he had applied. for five articulated units and five trailers, totalling 231 tons, to carry goods for Anglo-Continental Carriers on their service between Scotland and Ireland.
Blamire's had done substantial work for Anglo-Continental an their LeedsLarne run, and when that company opened a service from Ardrossan, in September. 1956, Blamire's agreed to provide them with some Preston-based vehicles, as there were no suitable facilities -in the area.
The service began with three of Blamire's 55 vehicles being used. and now five were regularly employed, so. there was a need for the service. None of the objectors had claimed that vehicles would be left idle if the licences were granted, because no-one else could handle the traffic properly.
Mr. J. M. Mitchell, a member of the Tribunal, pointed out that he main point against Blamire's was that although they had handled the traffic in England. they had not tried to determine whether existing licence holders could handle it in Scotland.
Mr. C. E. Jauncey. for the objectors. The British Transport Commission and 12 hauliers. said that as vehicles had been operated from Aberdeen. Blamire's were contravening the declared intention and the appeal must Mr. Hubert Hull, chairman, said it could only be a case of assumption that there had been illegal operation, as they did not know the terms of the declaration made in England. However, the applicants had not produced enough evidence to show that there was a need for the additional licences.
"Authority Confused" Plea Rejected
APPEALS by the British Transport Commission, Arthur Nicol and James Paterson and'Co. (Motor Hirers), Ltd., against the grant of three vehicles on A licence to John Rhind (Haulage Contractors), Ltd., were partially successful. The Tribunal decided to allow two of the vehicles.
For the B.T.C., Mr. R. R. Taylor said that last year Rhind's bought a business which included three A-licensed vehicles. The normal user was agricultural goods and building materials' in Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire. Subsequently, renewal of the iicences was refused on the ground that the vehicles had not conformed to their normal user and had been used instead on long-distance haulage.
In June this year, a fresh application was made with the same normal user, except that building materials had been deleted. This was granted by the Scottish Authority, but the Authority was wrong in his approach to the matter, in view of What had happened.
He had become confused, and ha4 linked the matter with the fact that there had previously been three vehicles, apparently.' thinking that Rhind's were extending facilities of the business they had bought. Even if a prima facie case had been made out, the objectors had shown that adequate transport facilities already existed in the area.
Mr. W. D. Connochie, for Nicol's and Paterson's. said Rhind's application was new and they had to prove evidence of need.
Replying for Rhind's, Mr. A. P. Brown said that in refusing the renewal. the Authority suggested the applicant should make another application for a different normal user and bring forward witnesses. As a result, a more restricted normal user had been sought and there was undoubted evidence of need. Rhind's had made out a prima facie case, which the objectors had not rebutted.
Announcing the decision, Mr. Hull said the need for two vehicles had been proved and they would be granted, with the licence limited to, the new normal user.
No Automatic Grant If no Objections
GIVING judgment on an appeal by Robert MsGillivray and Son, Northgate, Peebles, Mr. Hubert Hull, chairman of the Tribunal, made it clear that lack of objection to an application did not entitle the applicant to a grant. He added, however, that absence of an objection was to be taken into acCount as favourable to the applicant.
The appellants had originally applied to the Scottish Licensing Authority for a variation of their B licence to carry livestock and all agricultural requisites within a radius of 50 miles and lime within 75 miles. They sought this variation in respect of four vehicles, hut the Licensing Authority granted it for only one.
Mr. Hull said, that some evidence had been brought to show there was a need for licence or for a wider field of application. but on the main question of principle the Tribunal were against McGillivray's.
Dealing with the appellants' argument (reported in The Commercial Motor last week) that the Licensing Authority had given his decision before hearing submissions by McGillivray's, Mr. Hull said it seemed that at the relevant time the Authority's mind had not been "fully closed." The Tribunal were satisfied that the Authority had given proper effect to the whole of counsel's submissions.
The Tribunal granted a variation in respect of two other vehicles, but not entirely in the terms originally requested.,
A-licence Application Unfortunate Case"
1N presenting their case to the Tribunal,
.1. and A. Smith of Maddiston, Ltd., had pleaded a need for vehicles, but the goods they mentioned were all outside the normal user on their application. This was pointed out by Mr. Hull when he dismissed the company's appeal against the Scottish Authority's refusal of a further eight vehicles on A licence.
in some respects it had been an unfortunate case, he said. Mr. W. M'Ilwraith, for the applicants, had argued that evidence regarding the carriage of goods for Boots Pure Drug Co.. Ltd., and General Motors, Ltd., showed there was need for some of the vehicles, if not all of them.
However, the case as presented to the Tribunal was based on commodities outside Smith's normal user, which created an impossible position.