L.A. Applied Law That Was Inapplicable—Tribunal
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
" IT is going too far to say that an applicant must show evidence that work cannot reasonably be done by existing hauliers." This was a Transport Tribunal . comment when giving written judgment in which it dismissed an appeal by H. and A, Trotter of Penrith against the refusal of the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, to grant a new B licence in respect of a vacuum tanker conditioned for the carriage of farm effluent, sewage and contents of septic tanks within a 30 miles radius of Penrith.
During the appeal hearing, Mr. R. M. Yorke, for the appellants, submitted that Mr. •Hanlon had misdirected himself as to the principles of road haulage in saying that it had been laid down that newcomers must not only show that people were willing and able to employ them but they must show that the work could not be done by existing hauliers.
Commenting on this aspect of the case the Tribunal said that it was unable to endorse Mr. Hanlon's statement as a correct statement of the law to be applied.
" In the first place, the Act of 1960 draws no distinction between newcomers ... and established hauliers. In the second place it is not, as we understand the law, incumbent upon an applicant to prove that the work cannot reasonably be done by existing hauliers", the Tribunal said.
It was not uncommon, the Tribunal continued in its judgment, for applicants to seelZ to show a need for their services by calling witnesses who alleged that they had found inconvenience in getting the work done by existing hauliers, but it was going too far to say that an applicant must show by evidence that existing hauliers could not reasonably do the work. That, the Tribunal ruled, would be to reverse the onus of proof cast upon objectors by section 173(5) of the 1960 Act. • Nevertheless, the Tribunal continued, although the Authority did not express the law applicable accurately, it had come to the conclusion that the decision was right in the result. Giving the fullest weight possible to the supporting letters and oral evidence, the Tribunal said that they fell short of proving a need such as would justify the grant of the licence sought.