Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Oversight: appeals fail

21st March 1969, Page 34
21st March 1969
Page 34
Page 34, 21st March 1969 — Oversight: appeals fail
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, sitting in Edinburgh on Tuesday, rejected appeals by Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd. against a decision of the Scottish deputy Licensing Authority in favour of Walker Brothers (Cowdenbeath) Ltd.. and by British Railways Board against a decision of the Scottish Licensing Authority in favour of Gordon B. Caldwell Ltd.

Advocates for the respondents contended that appeal requirements had not been complied with. For Walker Brothers, Mr. R. C. B Currie claimed that the appeal was incompetent since it did not comply with regulation 22(4)(c), in that notice of appeal had not been sent to the respondent at the right time. This was in breach of Tribunal rule 12. There should, he said, be a penalty for failure to comply precisely with the regulations.

Mr. J. B. T. Loudon entered a similar plea on behalf of Caldwell.

For the appellants, Mr. R. MacKenzie accepted that there had been an unfortunate oversight but claimed that there had been no prejudice resulting from the delay. He asked the Tribunal to hear the appeal.

The Tribunal found that there had been a breach of requirements and they were thus unable to proceed with the hearing. The Tribunal, said the president, had no discretion in the matter since the regulations were mandatory. Regulation 22 had to be complied with in full.

Notice of the grant of two vehicles on A licence to Walker Brothers had appeared on November 16, and on December 13 the appellant had lodged with the Tribunal a document purporting to be notice of appeal, which stated that copies had been sent to the LA and the respondent. In fact, no notice had been sent to the respondent until March 5 1969.

No appearance

In Edinburgh on Wednesday the Tribunal refused an appeal by W. A. Peacock under Rule 44(1 I—non-appearance. Respondents were B RS and another.

comments powered by Disqus