Given No Chance to Defend Revocation Charge Before L.A.
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HOUGH a Northern haulage mpany, R. Martin and Sons Ltd., it appear ever to have had the unity of stating its case against Lion, by the Northern Licensing ity, of its A licence, the Transport al on Wednesday, in a written n, refused an appeal against the tion.
, stated the Tribunal, was because :oked licence was due to expire on : 31 last year and had only been led in force pending determination ipplication for a new A licence and peal against refusal of that licence ition.
Tribunal has, however, allowed peal against refusal of a replaceA licence for the five vehicles ned, allowing new vehicles more e for carrying for the Consett Iron my. This involved a substantial in normal user, although no such ent was made. In evidence, Mr.
Walton (managing director of and Sons), said he did not know ompany was operating outside its normal user until his attention was called to it, the application form having been filled in by the late Mr. F. Milton, then northern area secretary of the Road Haulage Association.
Describing Mr. Walton's evidence as
astonishing ". the Tribunal nevertheless accepted him as a witness of truth 'in the absence of any finding to the contrary by the L.A.
Allowing the renewal appeal, . the Tribunal directed that two months should elapse before the new licence be granted, as a "mark of our disapproval of the applicant's conduct as a carrier ".
The Northern L.A. gave notice of his intention to consider revocation or suspension of the existing licence during the hearing of the application for the renewal licence, which was the subject of several hearings. Finally, in a written decision, the L.A. refused the renewal and revoked the existing licence.
"It does not appear to us that the appellant ever had the opportunity of stating his case against revocation," said the Trihunal.