AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal Hear Echo of Extra-axle Case

9th October 1959, Page 31
9th October 1959
Page 31
Page 31, 9th October 1959 — Tribunal Hear Echo of Extra-axle Case
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?

YET another case involving the addition of an axle and an increase in unladen weight came before the Transport Tribunal in London on Tuesday. S. Rush, Ltd., appealed against the Northern Licensing Authority's refusal to vary an A licence by substituting a vehicle of 5 tons 13 cwt. for one of 5 tons 2 cwt.

Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for S. Rush, Ltd., said that Mr. William Stubbs. who had acquired shares in the company, held a special A licence for a vehicle of 54 tons. It was subsequently ascertained that the vehicle was being operated with an additional axle and at a weight of 74 tons. When this became known. the Licensing Authority revoked the special A licence. An application by Mr. Stubbs for a public A licence for the vehicle was refused.

Mr. Stubbs had later been granted a short-term licence to operate the vehicle which had been specified in the revoked licence. The short-term licence was due to expire on October 12, 1958, but the vehicle was still being operated on December 3. Mr. Stubbs said that he was under the impression that the licence was valid until the 10th day of the 12th month, instead of the 12th day of the 10th month.

S. Rush, Ltd., then applied unsuccessfully for a variation of the licence.

Sir Hubert Hull, president, said the Licensing Authority had prevented the company from operating any vehicle from the end of May this year. "We do not think we should impose so long a penalty of suspension as five months. We have come to the conclusion that the limited company has suffered at least as much as we should have made it suffer if we had heard the application," he added.

The Tribunal thought the licence should be granted to Rush for a vehicle not

exceeding 54 tons. Having decided to refuse the application, the Authority removed from the existing licence the vehicle specified on it. There was no appeal. The Tribunal thought it was an unfortunate decision for which there appeared to be no good reasons.


comments powered by Disqus