AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A CONTINENTAL BATTLE?

13th July 1962, Page 48
13th July 1962
Page 48
Page 48, 13th July 1962 — A CONTINENTAL BATTLE?
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?

by NORMAN'H.TILSLEY ATTENTION has been drawn in this journal recently to an application by the German removals operators, Internationaler Mobeltransport Und Spedition, of Frankfurt, who seek a two-vehicle B licence to allow them, about 12 times a year, to haul "Single loads of household removals picked up on Continent (usually in Germany) for delivery in Great Britain, on the same vehicle which picked up the load, to single destination in Great Britain, for unloading and packing and placing in position in residence under the supervision of the same staff who packed the load on the Continent."

The application has attracted a large number of objectors-21 independent hauliers, and the B.T.C.

Presumably, the objections are made in the usual form under Section 173(4)(a) of the 1960 Act—" that suitable transport facilities in the district or between the places which the applicant intends to serve are or, if the application were granted, would be, either generally or in respect of any particular type of vehicles, in excess of requirements."

It is common practice that, generally 3peaking, only operators holding licences entitling them to carry the same commodities applied for. in the same area applied for, are entitled to be included among the objectors.

In view of this, how do the objectors to the German application stand? Are they authorized, whether it be under an A or a B licence, to carry "single loads of household removals picked up on the.

Continent . ." etc., etc.?

This could be one of the questions for the Metropolitan Licensing Authority to decide when he hears the application, which is due to be listed soon. The case should provide a deal of interest, for it is probably the very first Continental "battle' to reach the licensing courts. The Divisional Court appeal establishe the principle that, if it can be proved thi a driver was not working within tt scope of his employment (had gone o on a "frolic" of his own, to use tF wording of the Court), there is no obligE tion on his employer to ensure that record is kept.

Until (and unless) the position is furthe clarified, hauliers who find themselve faced with similar charges will doubtle! have to produce strong evidence that th driver disobeyed his instructions. Th best way of proving the point, a lawyc tells me, is to issue drivers with writte instructions, making the driver sign fo them and keeping a carbon copy; extr labour, of course, but well worth it if can shorten the list of convictions whic Licensing Authorities so minded ca refer to when dealing with licenc applications.

Already the Appeal Court's judgmen has been put to good use, for it wa quoted in the recent appeals, some o which were successful, to Londe)] Sessions by Davis Brothers (Hauliers', Ltd., of London. It is to be hoped tha the authorities in future will not be quit, so hasty in laying informations agains employers, unless they are certain tha the driver was acting within the scope o his employment.


comments powered by Disqus