AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal Criticize Hearing of Application

29th January 1954
Page 23
Page 23, 29th January 1954 — Tribunal Criticize Hearing of Application
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?

THE Eastern Licensing Authority was I criticized by the Transport [Appeal] Tribunal last week for the "unsatisfactory way" in which he dealt with

an application. They dismissed an appeal by Siddons, Ward and Co., Harrold, Beds, against the Authority's refusal to grant them a B licence in place of a contract-A licence for their six vehicles.

The respondents were the . British Transport Commission, Messrs. A. Tilley, Wellingborough, and W. G. Eales (Transport), Ltd., Wellingborough. For the appellants, Mr. M. Holmes said that the Authority stopped the hearing after his clients had called their evidence. The company had been working for the North Bedford Sand

and Gravel Co. at a pit at •Harrold since 1951 and now wished to become ballast merchants themselves. Mr. Holmes thought that the two independent respondents in the case were anxious not so much to prevent the grant of a licence, but to stop the appellants entering the ballast business in their own right.

The Authority had suggested that the appellants ihould purchase an additional vehicle for operation under a C licence. Mr. Holmes described this as " uneconomic and wasteful." For the B.T.C., Mr. C. R. Beddington agreed that the hearing was unsatisfactory and suggested that if the appeal were dismissed, "everybody could start afresh." Mr, N. MacDermott, representing the other respondents, contended that the objectors had no case to answers,

Mr. Hull said:.." This is an unsatisfactory case because of the way in which the Licensing Authority dealt with it. At the end of the applicants' case, and without any submission made to him by. any of the objectors, he proceeded. to dismiss the application. We think that can hardly ever be justified, because the result must be that the Licensing Authority has had no opportunity of hearing all the objectors have come to tell him.

"We think that the appeal should be merely dismissed to leave, the applicant free either to call the same evidence or different evidence, and for the first time give the objectors an opportunity of putting their case."


comments powered by Disqus