AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Leg man loses his argument

29th March 1986, Page 12
29th March 1986
Page 12
Page 12, 29th March 1986 — Leg man loses his argument
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?

AN APPEAL against the sl pension of a Notringhi company's operator's licet was rejected at the Tramp Tribunal last week.

The company, Nottingh; Service Contractors, had 0-licence suspensed by Eastern Deputy Licensi Authority when the compa failed to present its case a public inquiry.

Mr S. Gibson, representi Nottingham Service Contr tors, said the company v called to two public inquiris

The first had been pa poured because of a holic commitment, and he h failed to attend the second I cause of an accident at wc on the day of the inquiry, which he had been badly on the right leg, he said.

Gibson told the tribu that his leg was lacerated about 9am on the day of • public inquiry. He phoned' court from work to see if I inquiry could be postpor until after lunch.

He spoke to a clerk w promised to ask the D whether the inquiry could postponed, and left his wc phone number.

After being transported the hospital by a colleag Gibson said he was treal swiftly and was ready to lei by 10am.

1 Ie called his workplace get a colleague to collect h from hospital and was t, that the clerk of the court 1 phoned to say that the inqu could not be postponed.

Judge Hampden lnsk ruled that Gibson made ins ficient effort to attend the quiry, which was schedu to begin at 10am.

He suggested that a phc call from the hospital won have succeeded in post poni the inquiry for five minu while Gibson made his w there.

The Judge said: "We do r think you took reasonal steps to get to this inquir) and ordered that the susps sion should continue until • inquiry can be reconvened.


comments powered by Disqus