AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence Transfer: Court Dispute

11th April 1952, Page 32
11th April 1952
Page 32
Page 32, 11th April 1952 — Licence Transfer: Court Dispute
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?

A DISPUTE over an agreement to PI secure the transfer Of an A licence gave rise to an action before Mr. Justice Finnemore in the Queen's Bench Division last Friday. Mr. J. W. Woodman, Staverton Road, London, N.W.2, sued Mr. William T. Monk, trading in partnership with Mrs. Monk as Messrs. Monkton Motors, Field End Road, South Harrow, Middx, who denied any agreement or that he, had failed in any duty.

The plaintiff said that he had bought a lorry in 1946 and needed an A licence. The defendant purchased a haulage business, Gem Transport, from a Wallington man, acquiring two A licences and, the plaintiff alleged, promised to secure the transfer of one of them. A sum of £300 was paid and Woodman was handed the licence disc, but no other document. When the licence expired in August, 1948, the plaintiff ceased to use the lorry and the licence was never regranted to him.

A30 Mr. Monk denied that there was any agreement to secure the transfer and said that he had handed the licence and the relevant certificate to Mr. Woodman. When Gem Transport was bought, the arrangement was that each party would have the right to use one of the A licences and carry on trading independently. The plaintiff took over the name of the acquired business, but never applied to have the licence granted in his own name. Failure to secure the transfer was not because of any default or breach of agreement by the defendant.

Mr. Justice Finnemore said that he could not hold that Mr. Monk had given any guarantee to secure the transfer and he was not satisfied that the defendant did not hand over the certificate at the same time as he gave the plaintiff the disc. There was no breach of contract by the defendant and judgment would be given in his favour with costs.

Tags

Organisations: Queen's Bench Division
Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus