AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Valliant Co. Loses "Singles" Case

25th December 1936
Page 42
Page 42, 25th December 1936 — Valliant Co. Loses "Singles" Case
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?

AT last the dispute with regard to restrictions imposed on the issue of tickets on seasonal express services from seaside resorts to London has come before the High Court. Lord Hewart and Justices Swift and Macnaghten, in a King's Bench Divisional Court, last week, heard arguments on behalf of the Minister of Transport, the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners, the Southern Railway Co. and the Southdown Motor Services, Ltd., in opposition to rules obtained by Valliant Direct Coaches, Ltd., of Ealing, London, W.

The rules challenged the right of the Commissioners and Minister of Transport to impose conditions that prevent the issue of single tickets from southcoast resorts (Eastbourne, Southsea, Bournemouth, etc.), to London.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor, K.C.), on behalf of the Minister and the Commissioners, contended that the jurisdiction of the Commissioners contained a full direction to grant backings to the licences, or to limit them so as 'to regulate the road traffic.

In 1934-5 the Commissioners allowed the issue of single tickets from the coast, but, on appeal by the Southern Railway and Southdown Motor Services, Ltd., the Minister decided that that permission could not be granted, and directed the Commissioners to expunge it.

The Valliant Co.'s case was that such an order entailed the loss of tickets from the coast and imposed "an intolerable burden of competition from other traffic concerns not restricted." The company contended that the restrictions conflicted with its obligations as a common carrier, and with the conditions of its licences in other areas over which the Commissioners, in this case, had no control. The order had the result that, although the company had to run coaches to n36

schedule, the vehicles might have to return half-empty.

The court discharged the rules in favour of the Minister, the Commissioners and the other opponents, with costs.

Lord Hewart said that the railway company and Southdown Motor Services, Ltd., could properly appeal to the Minister to vary the conditions under which the Valliant company ran its coaches and there was no real substance in the grounds which challenged the jurisdiction or discretion of the Minister and the Commissioners to make the order which they had.

SPEEDING ONUS ON COMMISSIONERS?

WHEN a Forfar bus driver pleaded 11( guilty., at Fm-far Sheriff Court, to exceeding the 30 m.p.h. speed limit on two stretches of the Dundee-Forfar road, it was stated that bus drivers were on the horns of a dilemma.

The Traffic Commissioners had recently permitted an acceleration of the time-table on the Dundee-Forfar road, and the drivers had to run to time. Some of the buses were not fitted with speedometers.

The Sheriff considered that an admonition would meet the case, the driver having been deprived of the means for gauging his speed through the absence of a speedometer.

PROFITS INSTEAD OF LOSSES.

PROFITS, instead of expected deficits, are reported in the halfyearly financial statement of Hull Transport Committee. On the tramways there is an estimated surplus for the half-year of £457, against an estimated deficit for the whole year of £3,000. The estimated surplus on the buses will be £444, instead of the expected deficit of £1,985 for the year,


comments powered by Disqus