Laws Decisions on Variation Cases
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Two interesting Liverpool decisions I have just been given.by the NorthWestern Licensing Authority. J.L. Transport Co., after hearings before Sir William Hart and Mr. W. Chamberlain, has been refused permission to run an additional 2i-ton vehicle.
At the hearing of the renewal application before Mr. W. Chamberlain in April, when the company asked permission to add a 2i-ton vehicle to its fleet, Mr. Henry I3ackhouse, Jun., for applicant, said that a previous application for the transfer of the business of a Mr. McNee, including a 2i-ton vehicle, under Section II (3) (b) of the 1933 Act, had been refused by Sir William Hart. An appeal against that decision had been lodged, but would be withdrawn if the present application were granted. Mr. Chamberlain has granted the renewal of the company's three A-licence vehicles, but refused the additional vehicle. • The second decision concerns inter.' linked applications by Mr. H. H. Booth and Mr. A. Jolly, both of Birkenhead, which have been;granted by,Sir William Hart, the North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority.
Mr. Booth sought power to acquire a 31•-ton articulated vehicle in place of his 11-ton vehicle on renewing his B licence, on the ground that he had taken over the contract A licence work of Mr. A. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly applied for a renewal of his A licence for a .2i-ton vehicle, but admitted he had changed the character of his work. The railways contended he had not only obtained a dual grant, but had changed the character of his business and should be treated, to a great extent, as a newcomer, In the case of Mr. • Booth, they contended• it would mean the grant to a B-licensee of an unlimited radius of operation-for hire or reward.