AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Seven-day Hearing Finished A FTER a hearing occupying seven

6th March 1936, Page 25
6th March 1936
Page 25
Page 25, 6th March 1936 — Seven-day Hearing Finished A FTER a hearing occupying seven
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?

days—believed to he a record on the road-haulage side—the application of Convoys, Ltd., for A licences for three vehicles (two in possession and one to be acquired) terminated at Liverpool, last Friday, before Mr. W. Chamberlain, North-Western Licensing Authority,

At the previous sitting, Mr. G. H. P. Beames, for the railways, had submitted that the company must be regarded as a newcomer, in the sense that it was known in Liverpool only as a wharfinger, although it was a transport operator in London; whilst it had no service linking the two bases.

Mr. H. Baekhouse and Mr. V. R. Shepherd, for certain objectors, contended that, if a licence were to be granted, it should be of the Contract A class,

Mr. Chamberlain remarked that, in a recent appeal decision, in a case in which the Authority concerned had said that he was prepared to grant the appellant a B 'licence, although he had no Other trade or business, the Appeal Tribunal had refused to pass comment

on the question, but seemed to uphold the Authority's view. "

Mr. Backhouse contended that the Authority could not giant a B licence.

Mr. David Karmel, for Convoys,

Ltd., said that the company had specialized for 16 years in the transport of paper and sought merely a legitimate development of its business. If it were' proper for the company to be granted

B licence; Convoys, Ltd,, would he

agreeable to this course, hut Mr. Karmel held that a wharfinger was not entitled to such a licence. He further contended that this was not -a proper case for a contract licence.

Counsel remarked that Convoys, Ltd., had brought the Canadian newsprint business to England, and, having actually Created the traffic, had rights similar to those of the railways in the Sanderson appeal case and of the road operators in the Bouts-Tillotson appeal. Mr. Karmel denied that the applicant could be regarded as a newcomer, the company having beeh fortned in 1920 and having had, in the basic year, 27 claimed-tonnage vehicles in London.

Decision was reserved,


comments powered by Disqus