Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal Reserves Decision

28th December 1962
Page 13
Page 13, 28th December 1962 — Tribunal Reserves Decision
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?

HE Transport Tribunal last week

reserved its decision in the appeal of H. .1: Hadfield and Sons Ltd., of Ashton under Lyne, against the decision of the North Western deputy Licensing Authority in. refusing the company's. application for A licences for . five vehicles.

The objectors were British Transport Commission, T. Swindell and Sons (Hauliers) Ltd., Firstin Garages, Brewer and Turnbull Ltd., Frank Hill Ltd„ and Knights Bros.

Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for Hadfield, said the declaration of normal user was plastics, display material and paper products in Great Britain. The vehicles concerned were on contract A licence operating for two customers who supported the application, and further support came from a .third trader who gave evidence of need to carry display material.

The deputy Authority after reserving his decision had upheld the submission on behalf of the first two Private objectors that there was no prima facie

case to answer and no evidence had been called for the Objectors. Neither the B.T.C. nor the other objectors had made any submission or called any evidence.

Mr. Samuel-Gibbon maintained that the submission had been entirely without substance, and that a prima facie case had been established on the basis of quantum.

Mr. J. Evans, for Swindell and Sons and Firstin Garages, said the deputy Authority was right, but submitted that if the Tribunal held that he was not, then the case should be sent back to the Authority.

This view was resiSted by Mr. SamuelGibbon, who claimed that if parties made a submission and then did not call evidence, they had to standby the consequences. He pointed out that such evidence as they could call would be unlikely to assist because most of the objectors were involved in a different type of work from Hadfield'.

The Tribunal said it would take time to reach a decision.

comments powered by Disqus