' Cynical disregard of licensing procedure' QC tells Tribunal
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Transport Tribunal reserved its decision on Tuesday after rehearing the appeal made by the Transport Holding Company • (BRS Ltd.) against the granting by the East Midland LA of an A licence for six articulated vehicles for P. and H. Garage and Transport (Bothwell) Ltd.
Mr. E. S. Fay QC, for the THC, said that the respondent company was a subsidiary of Plaistow and Hanger Ltd., importer and exporter of textiles, wool and machinery. This parent company originally ran its haulage on C licence but in May of 1966 the respondent company was formed and obtained a B licence in August of that year. In September 1967 the company applied for an A licence and it was out of the ensuing public inquiry with the granting of that application that the first appeal, and consequently the rehearing, arose.
At the first appeal, said Mr. Fay, the appel
lant contended that there were two important points arising from the public inquiry, one a question of need and the other relating to the company's illegal operations. When the Tribunal heard the appeal it refused to hear arguments relating to illegal operations as these had not been mentioned in the notice of appeal. It interested itself solely, therefore, in the question of need. This it found to have been proved, and the appeal was dismissed.
The THC took its case to the Court of Appeal where it was decided that the appeal should be reheard and the question of illegality ventilated.
Illegal operation by the company had come to light, contended Mr. Fay, through an article appearing in a trade newspaper describing the company's operations on the Continent. The article described journeys to Basle, Austria, Istanbul and Italy for such concerns as the Ford Motor Co. Ltd. When asked if he had
realized the illegality of those operations the company's managing director at that time told the LA that a representative of the Ministry had assured him that as his B-licence application had been received he was entitled to
carry out such work. '
Documents produced in evidence to show the vehicles' earnings, said Mr. Fay, did not Include any mention of the Continental work. -This is not only a case of illegal operations," submitted Mr. Fay, -But also of concealing the truth from the court, and, what is most important, one doesn't find the company coming clean." There had been, he said, "a cynical disregard of licensing procedure".
Mr Fay contended that, were this appeal dismissed, it would be shown that flaunting the law brought only rewards.
The Tribunal will give its judgment in writing.