War4tme Company Transfer Problem
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THERE IS NONE SO DEAF . . .
"'THERE has been no change in the
I policy of His Majesty's Government as announced in the King's Speech," replied the Prirne Minister to CO1, Gomme-Duncan in the House of Commons last week.
Col. Gomme-Duncan had asked whether -the statement sent from the Liaison Committee of Transport and Industry had been considered and what course was to be followed in view of the opinions expressed in it.
The statement was sent in response to the invitation for criticism contained in the recent White Paper, and stated that. chaos and dislocation would result from the Government's measures.
' ACTION IN GRANTHAM PRODUCTIONS CASE
A. TEST case-due' for hearing in the PA High Court :after Easter concerns a claim tor the return of deposits said to have been 'paid by Member§ of the public, who were prcispective purchasers " of cats and tractors to have been made by Grantham Productions, .Ltd.
The action is being: brought against the liquidator of Grantham Productions, Ltd., by Motor, Distrihutors, Ltd., of Arinley, Leeds, nominated to do sia by about 30 Other motor traders. These concerns, which were to have distributed the cars and tractors, are sharing finan-', cial responsibility -for promotion of the action,. .
I, G.:. Tooth, general manager .f_ Motor DistributOrs, Ltd., told a correspondentthat the aggregate amount of deposit Paid through the companies in question to the Grantham concern was £55,739. After the liquidation of the Grantham company was sanctioned, his concern refunded to clients all the deposits paid.
IN a case where a company has bought out another concern during the war and now applies for licences for the vehicles acquired, the question arises whether the applicant should provide proof of need from the date of the take-over or from the date of the issue of the pre-war licences to the concern subsequently purchased.
This matter came before the Appeal Tribunal last week, in an appeal by the L.M.S. Railway Co. against a decision of the North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority.
In 1939 the Hutton Motor Co., Ltd., ran four vehicles and four trailers, but in 1944 sold its business, including eight vehicles and three trailers, to Daniell's Road Haulage, Ltd., a moribund company formed by Transport Services. Ltd., for the taking over of the Hutton Motor Co., Ltd. Later, Daniell'F. Road Haulage, Ltd., changed its name to the Hutton Motor. Co., Ltd., and in 1946 applied for licences to operate the eight Vehicles and three traders which' had run under Defence Permits during The war.
This application ,was substantially granted, but the -L.M.S. attempted to show at the hearing that the new Hutton concern should offer proof of need for increased tonnage as from 1939. This
contention was overruled, and the L.M.S. appealed against the decision.
Mr. Gilbert Woodward, for the L.M.S., submitted to the Appeal Tribunal that the case should go back for rehearing. The objectors, he stated, were entitled to go into the details of the transaction in 1944. The case of the Hulton Motor Co., Ltd., should be based on 1939 figures of tonnage of the previous concern of that name.
Appearing foe the respondent, Mr. Henry Backhouse submitted that it would not be proper to go back beyond 1944, as the applicant company was not • then in existence. The case should be considered only as from the beginning of business by the new Hulton concern.
The Tribunal reserved its decision.
Another case heard last week was the appeal of a haulier who objected to being saddled with B licences for some of his vehicles, when the remaining vehicles were granted A licences by the North-Western Licensing Authority.
Messrs. Storey Bros. in 1939 ran three lorries and during the war increased their fleet by one vehicle and one trailer. The firm applied for A licences for all their vehicles, but were granted them for only the three vehicles in possession before the war. The Licensing Authority intimated, however, that he would be willing to consider an application for B licences for the lorry and trailer acquired during the war.
The firm appealed, against this decision, but Mr. Gilbert Woodward, for the L.N.E. Railway Co., L.M.S, Railway Co., and H. Evers, Ltd., submitted that it was corrEt.
The Tribunal's decision was reserved. "TRADE PLATE" APPEAL DISMISSED
THE Appeal Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Messrs. Page, of Slough, a firm who desired A licences for three low-loading articulated vehicles. The appeal was reported in "The Commercial Motor" on March 28.
Announcing its decision, the Tribunal states that it does not consider that the need for low-loading vehicles for machinery transport in the Slough area would be great enough to justify the licensing of the appellant's vehicles.
Although the Tribunal took into account the firm's irregular operations under trade plates, its decision was not based on this misdemeanour, but solely on the lack of need.
NO DAILY SERVICE TO BLACKPOOL
A N application by Robin Hood Transport, Ltd., Nottingham, to operate a daily return service all the year round from Nottingham to Blackpool, has been refused by the East Midland Licensing Authority. A service has been operating since 1929, and Mr. J. Walker, traffic manager, said that the company hoped to increase traffic by introducing more frequent journeys. The objectors pointed out that during November last, the average number of persons carried on the journey was 91.
FARES INCREASE LIMITED TO 161 PER CENT.
WHEN Messrs. Adam and Sons, of IN Middleton, Market Harborough, applied for modifications to existing services and an increase in fares between Market Harborough and Yarmouth, Mr. .1, W. Fletcher, East Midland Deputy Licensing Authority, would not authorize a rise in fares over 16 per cent,