1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Kelman keeps its whisky grant
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Deciding that the persons requiring the transport facilities would be able to get their_ goods moved whatever its decision, the Transport Tribunal has dismissed the appeal by John A. Bell Ltd, J. and H. Caskie, B. Mundell and BRS Ltd against a grant of an A licence for one artic to Islay Transport Services conditioned "distillery products and requisites to and from Islay".
At the sitting held in Edinburgh on May 27 (CM June 6) the Tribunal dismissed a cross appeal by Islay Transport Services because it did not comply with the required Regulations.
Because of this decision the company's representative, Mr A. M. Morison, argued that the Tribunal could reverse the deputy Scottish LA's decision and grant the full application of three artic units and trailers. The Tribunal ruled otherwise, however, and said that its jurisdiction extended only so far as whether or not the applicant should retain its present grant or whether that grant should be set aside.
Mr Morison had also argued that the deputy LA had misdirected himself because in his decision he had stated that Mr James Kelman and Mr W. R. Kelman, who carried on business as Islay Transport Services were eackm persona with Kelman of Turriff, a 23-vehicle A-licensed business also carried on by them at Turriff. Mr Morison said that under Section 4 (2) of the Partnership Act 1890 a firm in Scotland was legally distinct from the partners of whom it was composed. Although it found the argument to be interesting, the Tribunal said that in this case it was not necessary to give a decision on it, Even assuming that both were legally distinct entities it was still fair to assume that as such, each were both under the control of Mr J. Kelman and Mr W. R. Kelman to such an extent that together they constituted one commercial unit.
The evidence showed that two of the appellants, John A. Bell and B. Mundell, had sufficient transport facilities on the island to undertake the work that Islay Transport hoped to do, said the Tribunal.
It seemed unreasonable, however, to expect Islay Transport to carry malt from Bridlington destined for Highland Distilleries Ltd at Bowmore, on Islay, as far as the ferry and then be forced to hire tractive units from the appellants to take the malt over the short distance to Bowmore. It therefore upheld the decision made by the deputy LA.