• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244

Assoc. Deliveries Lose Grant

Zoom page

3rd May 1963

Page 15

Page 15, 3rd May 1963 — Assoc. Deliveries Lose Grant

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?

Please select an option... Headline has errors Article text has errors Article is incomplete Submit

ADESIRE to avoid the necessity of renewing licences at two-yearly intervals could not be a reason for granting an A licence in place of B licences, the Transport Tribunal ruled on Wednesday, when it allowed an appeal by A. B. Bird (Downend) Ltd., and others against a decision of the Western Licensing Authority.

Mr. J. R. C. Samuel Gibbon, for the appellants, said the applicants (the respondents), Associated Deliveries Ltd., were granted a 28-vehicle B to A licence switch. The reasons given by the company to the Authority were that it was seeking to avoid the necessity for renewing its three B licences at two-yearly intervals. There was no intention to change the nature of the business—carrying groceries, chocolate and confectionery, for members of a consortium—which • was solely concerned with the .diStribution of goods, and as there was no ancillary business, the appropriate licence was

an A licence. .

• Mr. Samuel Gibbon submitted that hi,s main point, which would dispose, of the grant, was that the case was one in which a B licence was the only proper form of licence. On the evidence, the position was governed by the Merchandise Transport decision and, was in many ways similar to the H.M.W. Transport and the Davy and Co. (Grange) Ltd. appeals.

For AsSociated Deliveries, Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw submitted that it was significant that the appellants had never attempted to argue the merits of the case, but merely based their submissions upon the law. Neither had the merits been argued before . the Authority. He reminded the Tribunal of its findings in the Clark appeal.

The Tribunal, in its judgment, said that the respondent was -nothing more than a transport department of each of -the members of the consortium. In that respect the company was in . the same .,position as Mercha,ndise Transport. _. Applying the Court of Appeal's principles in that case, the facts did not justify the granting of an A licence.

Tribunal's Report

AT the end of 1962, 42 appeals to the Transport Tribunal were pending (compared with 30 at the end of 1961) but very few of these 42 had reached the stage where they could he listed for hearing. This was stated in the annual report of the Transport Tribunal issued on Wednesday.

'Fie report stated ihat last year 107 new appeals were lodged and 17 withdrawn. A total of 78 appeals were heard and determined, 23 of them in Scotland. In 42 instances the appellants succeeded wholly or partly.