Borderline Case Remitted to Scottish LA
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AT the same hearing, John W. Alexander, of Coatbridge, was the appellant against the refusal of the Scottish LA to add two vehicles to a
B licence to carry general goods within 20 miles of Coatbridge. He was represented by Mr. J. G. Milligan. Mr. J. Murray appeared for the respondents, John Alexander and Sons Ltd., also of Coatbridge.
Mr. Milligan said that the appellant's sub-contracting had increased substantially in recent years and difficulty was found in hiring vehicles before 11 a.m., with resulting complaints from customers. One supporting witness spoke of 500-600 tons of steel at a Coatbridge factory that awaited transport urgently. A number of individually written supporting letters merited some recognition, said Mr. Murray. These were not pro-forrnae based on a stereotyped letter drafted by the applicant.
Although the appellant employed a number of sub-contractors, none had come forward to object and no other hauliers apart from John Alexander and Sons had objected. It was no secret that the appellant fell out with the family firm for which he used to work.
Mr. Murray said the LA had exercised his discretion correctly and the appeal should be refused. If a prima fade case was made out the objectors should give evidence to prove that excess facilities 'would exist. It was pertinent to ask whether the sub-contracting was local or long-distance. The use made of sub
contractors in itself did not justify a grant. The appellant must show they were unsuitable.
Mr. Milligan said the unsuitability of sub-contracted vehicles did not lie in their numbers but in their unsuitability as to time, and the LA was wrong to disregard this aspect. The president said the Tribunal felt it was a borderline case and the benefit of any doubt should be given to the applicant They felt it proper to remit this appeal to the LA for the continuation of the hearing.