AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Robson Win Appeal Against Deletion of Vehicle

22nd February 1957
Page 29
Page 29, 22nd February 1957 — Robson Win Appeal Against Deletion of Vehicle
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?

THE Transport .Tribunal in London

on Tuesday allowed an appeal by Joseph Robson (West Farm), Ltd., Newborn, Newcastle upon Tyne, against a decision Of the Northern Licensing Authority (171e Commercial ,14otor, October 5, 1956) that a vehicle be remove3 from their B licence.

Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw said that in an application for the renewal of their B licence for two vehicles, submitted in October, 1954, the company stated that the permanent base from which the vehicle. would normally he used ' was 287 High Street East, WaIlsend.

In answer to the question: " What is your business other than that of a carrier?" they stated that they were coal merchants and dairymen, and that they intended to use the two vehicles concerned in the application in connection with that business.

During the hearing of an application by Joseph Robson (Wallsend), Ltd., it transpired that Joseph Robson (West Farm), LW., had given the coal merchants' and dairymen's part of the business to that .other company in January, 1956. and that one of the vehicles had beets transferred to Newburn.

In these circumstances the Authority called upon Joseph Robson (West Farm), Ltd... to show cause why their licence should not be .t:evoked or suspended on the ground that they had made statements of fact in the application which were not correct and a declaration of intention which was not fulfilled. One of the vehicles was deleted; Mr. Campbell Wardlaw said that the 'Authority had no power to direct the removal of the vehicle from the licence. The company had made no false statements.

Mr, Hubert Hull, president: "We think the Licensing Authority would have been better advised to say that he would have regard to what he considered to be prima facie departures from what had been represented when the licence was granted,

" When the matter Was considered by him the licence had only two more months to run. We think he would have been wiser to have delayed reaching a decision on either the legal effect or the practical effect of what he took to be departures'front the, truth until he came to consider whether the new licence should be granted."

The only reason the Tribunal were allowing the appeal was that they thought the effect of the representations said to have been made when the licence was granted would be better considered when the application, for a renewal was heard.


comments powered by Disqus