AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Newcomers in Appeals

23rd May 1947, Page 29
23rd May 1947
Page 29
Page 29, 23rd May 1947 — Newcomers in Appeals
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?

NEWCOMERS to the industry figured in two appeals heard before the Appeal Tribunal last week In the first case Mr. H. G. Powell was aggrieved by the action of the East Midland Deputy Licensing Authority in granting a B licence to Mr. H. Fenwick, of Scotter, near Gainsborough.

Mr. G. R. Swannick, for Mr. Powell, submitted that sufficient transport was available in the area for the traffic that Mr. Fenwick wished to carry, namely, agricultural goods within ten miles of base and building materials within 50 miles.

The reasons given by the Deputy Licensing Authority were that the arable acreage in Lincolnshire had increased and so more transport was required. Mr. I. J. Lewis, for the respondent, stated that the Deputy Licensing Authority had exercised his knowledge of transport conditions in the area when coming to the decision and did not have to rely on the weight of evidence alone. He declared that a shortage of lorries for carrying beet at the height of the beet season was caused by hauliers using their vehicles for transporting industrial goods from Scunthorpe.

Mr. Swannick replied that the Deputy Licensing Authority was not entitled to grant licences on the basis of his knowledge, but rather he should weigh the evidence produced in the light of his experience. He should not use his knowledge as a substitute for evidence.

The Tribunal reserved its decision.

The second case was an appeal by Messrs. J. R. Hewitt and J. Boagey, both newcomers of Morpeth, against the refusal of a B licence for four vehicles by the Northern Deputy Licensing Authority. Respondents inchided the L.N.E.R. Railway Co.

The Deputy Licensing Authority dismissed the firm's application on the ground of lack of need. Mr. J. H. C. Ward law, appearing for the appellant, refuted this lack, but Mr. J. L. R. Croft, for seven haulier respondents, supported the decision.

Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for the L.N.E.R., stated that a number of hauliers in the Morpeth area held licences for more vehicles than were actually operated.

Decision was reserved.


comments powered by Disqus