AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

"ribunal Dismisses Appeal giainst East Anglian Grant

22nd December 1961
Page 29
Page 29, 22nd December 1961 — "ribunal Dismisses Appeal giainst East Anglian Grant
Close
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?

Transport Tribunal in London week dismissed an appeal by ulage firms against the granting licence to East Anglian Carriers, London and Bury St. Edmunds. nce was in respect of a 3f-ton based at Bury St. Edmunds, to carry goods in containers for teral Steam Navigation Co., to n Felixstowe. It was granted by em Licensing Authority.

tree appellant firms were Warners rt, Bury St. Edmunds, C. J. H. Iarrow, near Bury St. Edmunds, B. Taylor, Barnhart], near Thet.t a previous hearing, Mr. M. D. s, for the appellants, said the of the appeal were that the y based his decision on evidence an earlier sitting.

; the Tribunal's reserved decision, .ident, Sir Hubert Hull, recalled a Anglian Carriers first made a Ipplication in 1960. A Mr. Moore, representing the General .Steam Navigation Co., had given evidence in support of the application, but the Licensing Authority, in his decision, said: "I cannot, somewhat reluctantly, see my way to granting this application as it stands, the normal user, in my view, not being framed to cover the field of delivery required by the company."

Sir Hubert said a fresh application, with a more narrowly framed normal user declaration, was made. This time, however, it was not possible to call Mr. Moore, but a letter signed by a Mr. Grover, Mr. Moore's immediate superior, was produced. In this he stated: "Our position with regard to transport is unaltered except that, if anything, it is more acute

The Licensing Authority treated the evidence given by Mr. Moore at the previous inquiry as being admissible.

The Tribunal, said Sir Hubert, was

satisfied that the Authority was right in taking Mr. Moore's evidence into account and the criticism that it was out of date was met by Mr. Grover's letter.

"We do not desire to be understood as laying down any general principle as to the use by a Licensing Authority of evidence given at a previous inquiry," said Sir Hubert.

The appeal then boiled down to the following questions of fact, said Sir Hubert:—

(I) Was the evidence sufficient to show there was need for improvement in services available for the road carriage of the containers to and from Felixstowe?

(2) Had the respondent company already sufficient carrying capacity available to regularly make good whatever deficiency there was in the facilities then enjoyed by the Navigation Company?

(3) Had the objectors shown that they could be relied upon, again with sufficient regularity, to make good any such proved deficiency?

"In our view, the answer to the first question is ' Yes ' and to the second and third No,'" added Sir Hubert. "Having arrived at these answers, not I should add without some hesitation, it follows that the appeal must be dismissed."


comments powered by Disqus