Mr. Hanlon's Decision to Suspend was Wrong, say Tribunal
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal, sitting in London on Tuesday, criticized the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlcin, for repeating an " error " he had made previously, in taking into account matters that were irrelevant to a current licence.
Allowing an appeal by Arthur Sanderson (Great Broughton), Ltd., against the susPerision of two A-licensed articulated vehicles and the re-specification of a further six because of an alleged breach of undertaking given, Sir Hubert Hull, the president of the Tribunal, said that it was odd that Mr. Hanlon should have repeated an error he had made when he revoked the 15-vehicle' licence of Dent's Transport (Spennymoor); Ltd. (a decision set aside by the Tribunal last year).
For. Sanderson's. Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw said that the grounds of appeal were that the decision of the Authority coUld not be supported having regard to the evidence; it acted harshly against Sanderson's; the 'Authority failed to 'have regard to the interests of the public generally. His clients had not made any statement_ of intention which had not been fulfilled. .
Sanderson's .were told in a letter' from the L.A.'s clerk that it had come to the notice of the Authority that they had .operated .articulated vehicles of an overall length in excess of 35 ft.." in direct contraVention of undertakings given ". to potential objectors. When : asked for further , particulars about the undertakings, Sanderson's had been given copies of six letters. Mr. Wardlaw said that the first, three letters mentioned undertakings in respect of a licence which had expired.
The Tribunal was only concerned with undertakings given in respect of applications for the re-grant of a licence, Mr. Wardlaw said. The only undertakings— if undertakings they were—were contained in three letters, not one of which was written by Sanderson's.
It was these three letters .upon whieh the Authority had based his desire to revoke or suspend the licence.
In a long judgment, Sir Hubert Hull said that it was obvious from the dates of the first three letters referred to by the Authority that any undertakings given could not be said to have been made for the purpose of the application for the licence under review. They ought never to have been taken into account by the Authority. The fact that he did so was sufficient in itself to invalidate the exercising of his discretion.
Referring to the three remaining letters, Sir lhibert said it was a little odd, when an allegation was made against a haulier that undertakings had been given in writing, that the letters containing them were not written by that haulier, or his solicitor or representative.
The Tribunal had examined the letters very carefully and did not think they could be interpreted as being evidence of the sort of undertaking charged against the appellants. Indeed, they were much more easily read as meaning that what had been said had referred not to the vehicles in general but merely to a particular vehicle which he was seeking to have licensed. There was also a plain statement, given orally by Mr. Sanderson to the Authority, that no such undertaking: had been given at all. It was quite impossible to hold that an undertaking had been given and then to go on to consider whether it had been broken.
Commenting that it was not clear from where in the 1960 Act the Authority had derived the power to re-specify vehicles on a licence, Sir Hubert said that the matter need not be explored.
APPEAL AGAINST W. MIDLAND GRANT FAILS IN a second appeal heard by the Tribunal on Tuesday, it was said that the West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority was not justified, by the evidence before him, in granting a new B licence to A. H. Scattergood of Leamington Spa. H. P. Kitching of Warwick were the appellants.
Giving the Tribunal's decision, Mr. 11.H. Phillips said: "Having reviewed all the evidence, we have come to the conclusion, as the Deputy L.A. did, that there is some justification for the grant, and the appeal therefore fails."