Transport Tribunal in London
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NO LICENCE—APPEAL FAILS
A T the sitting of the Transport
Tribunal in London on Tuesday, before an appeal commenced, Mr. J. M. Timmons, for the B.T.C., made a preliminary objection that the licence, the subject of the appeal, had expired and that the Tribunal could issue no effective order.
Mr. Timmons explained that the appellants, B. J. Howlett and Co., Ltd., of London, had appealed against a decision of the Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority refusing an application for the variation of a B licence. The inquiry was held in February of this year. Howlett's had entered their appeal in March, but the licence expired on June 30. An application for a new licence in continuation of the old one, but with the original conditions upon it, was subsequently granted. Mr. Timmons submitted that the case was similar to the appeal of If. L. Walker and the B.T.C. where the Tribunal had declined to make any order.
Mr. N. E. Wiggins, for Howiett's, submitted that Mr. Timmons' point was bad in law. In an argument which lasted well over an hour, he contended that the application was really a substitution of one vehicle for another of heavier weight. The deputy Authority had not carried out the instructions of the Tribunal given in the Rainbow appeal allowing the original licence to continue pending appeal. "My clients, being unaware of these matters, felt into this trap for the uninformed, who have great difficulty in finding out information of this sort. This is technicality of the first order," he said.
The president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, said the application did not concern a substitution. The licence, the subject of the appeal, had expired and it was not proper to go on with the case.
BREAKDOWN EVIDENCE ACCEPTABLE
'THE Tribunal upheld a decision of 1 the Yorkshire deputy Licensing Authority, who had granted an application to vary a B licence purely on evidence of breakdown of vehicles.
Mr, J. M. Timmons, for the B.T.C. (the appellants), said that Mr. Kenneth Cooke, of Ashover (near Chesterfield) (the respondent), had three Aand two B-licensed vehicles, The B vehicles were not entitled to carry coke and it appeared that the A vehicles although new were continually breaking down to such an extent that the applicant wanted to be able to use the B vehicles to carry coke when the A vehicles were off the road. No customer evidence was given to the Authority.
Mr. Timmons submitted that if any grant .was justified, it should have been limited to the carriage of coke only when the A vehicles were broken down and not left in the wide terms of coke as required." It seemed reasonable to assume that when Cooke replaced the vehicles he would have extra facilities for which he had produced no customer evidence at all.
Mr. C. R. Beddington, for Cooke. submitted that the deputy Authority's discretion should not be interfered with. The application was to provide more flexibility to cater for the breakdowns. There was evidence of some advantage to the applicant and of inconvenience to the customer. There was no evidence of disadvantage to the B.T.C.
Mr. Squibb, giving judgment on the appeal, said that the deputy Authority had exercised his discretion correctly. The licences were due to expire next year and there would then be an opportunity of reviewing the position.