AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Three More Appeals Fail

8th February 1935
Page 87
Page 87, 8th February 1935 — Three More Appeals Fail
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 Appeal Tribunal, at a sitting last week, granted art application by the Southern Railway Co. for an

award of 2s. costs against E. Haines Jones, Ltd., in respect of that concern's recent appeal, which was withdrawn.

In the case of an appeal by Cox and Co., London, S.W.15, the well-known concern of accessory manufacturers, against the decision of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority refusing a variation of a " B " licence, objections were made by the London, Midland and Scottish and the Great Western Railway companies.. The variation applied for was to enable customers' goods to be returned from Coventry, and it was stated, on behalf of the appellant, that it was necessary to employ two vehicles on this work in order to comply with the regulations concerning drivers' hours.

The Licensing Authority held the view that the carriage of goods on return journeys was not generally desirable, and constituted unfair competition with other hauliers. The Tribunal agreed generally with the Authority's views, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. .

The appeal of Mr. C. J. Randall, of Hornchurcli, 'against the Metropolitan Authority's refusal to vary a " B " licence, raised an interesting legal point. The appellant sought: to substitute a 2k-ton vehicle for a trailer, thus having two vehicles, but with a Combined weight less than that already licensed. It was contended that such a substitution was permissible under Section 10 (2) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.

On this point the Tribunal decided that a trailer, as defined in Section 36 of the Act, is not a "specified vehicle " within the meaning of Section 10. It follows that the proviso to Section 10 (2) does not apply, and the Licensing Authority had a discretion as to whether or not he should grant the variation. • The chairman, Mr. Rowand Harker, KC., said that the Tribunal's reason for this decision would be given on February 19. The appeal was continued on the question of facts and was dismissed. After a short hearing, the appeal of W. J. Boorman, of Canterbury, was withdrawn. Agreed costs of e7 were awarded to the Southern Railway Co.

On Wednesday last, at Lancaster, the Tribunal heard the appeal of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. against the decision of the NorthWestern Licensing Authority granting art " A " licence to Mr. C. W. Inman, of Morecambe.


comments powered by Disqus