1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
New legal argument at Transport Tribunal
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Transport Tribunal in London on Tuesday heard an appeal against the refusal of the Northern LA, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, to grant an extra two vehicles to the Contract A licence of Barnett and Graham Ltd. It will give its decision in writing.
Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for the appellants, based his case on a legal technicality. He argued that Mr. Hanlon had "acted in excess of his jurisdiction by refusing the application. The LA could only refuse the variation if he was not satisfied with the conditions of contract." He further submitted that the LA was not refusing the variation on these grounds. A contract A licence could be refused if the LA thought the applicant an unfit person to hold a carrier's licence, but in this case the actual licence had already been granted. Barnett and Graham was only applying for a twovehicle variation.
Mr. Campbell Wardlaw gave what he thought to be the reason for Mr. Hanlon's refusal to vary the licence. Bennett and Graham had recently been the appellants at another Transport Tribunal (Appeal No. E43). It had appealed against the decision of the Northern LA to suspend four out of 10 vehicles for 12 months on a limited B
licence because of misconduct. Barnett and Graham had been found guilty by Penrith magistrates' court for allowing its drivers to exceed the permitted maximum working hours, allowing them to work with less than the legal minimum of 10 hours rest and for forging records themselves to cover up these offences.
Mr. Campbell Wardlaw said that Mr. Hanlon saw the two extra vehicles on the Contract A as an easy alternative to the decision of the Transport Tribunal for Barnett and Graham. He maintained that this was not so. The vehicles on the Limited B had been carrying outward loads of pig iron to all parts of Great Britain. The two vehicles applied for on the Contract A were to be used for motorway construction by Tarmac Roadstone Ltd.. whose general Manager had been at the inquiry to justify this need. Mr. Campbell argued that even if Barnett and Graham did see this as an easy way round the Transport Tribunal's decision, the Northern LA was not legally able to refuse the variation applied for.
The Tribunal said that the decision would be given in writing because it did not wish to express any view on this new and interesting legal point at the moment.