AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Contract Illegal: Action Fails

13th March 1936, Page 79
13th March 1936
Page 79
Page 79, 13th March 1936 — Contract Illegal: Action Fails
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?

LAST Friday, Mr. John George Nash, Chertsey Bridge Road, Shepperton, unsuccessfully appealed before Lord Roche, Lord Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Eve, in the Court of Appeal, against the dismissal by Mr. Justice Humphreys, in the King's Bench Division, of his claim against Stevenson Transport, Ltd., Sefton Road, Litherland, Liverpool, for £375. It was alleged that, under an agreement, the defendant was to pay him that sum in consideration of the plaintiff lodging successful claims for haulage licences.

The defendant said that the object of the agreement was to enable the company to obtain by transfer or assignment A licences to be secured by plaintiff, and the agreement was void and unenforceable, because the 1933 Act provided that licences should not he capable of being transferred or assigned.

Mr. Beney, for the appellant, said that both plaintiff and defendant were road-transport contractors. Mr. Nash was entitled to licences in respect of 51 tons, but he had not the facilities for taking advantage of this right. The object of the agreement was to enable the defendant to obtain the benefit of the licences.

The agreement was not in itself illegal, and plaintiff performed his part of it, but the judge held that the agreement could not be carried out without contravening the Act, He (counsel) contended that that could have been done, because there was nothing to prevent Mr. Nash from becoming the nominal legal owner of some of Stevenson's vehicles and running them for the benefit of the defendant.

Lord Roche, in giving judgment, said that the Act required that the person

running the vehicles should be the employer of the persons in charge of them and he should keep the records of the use for the vehicles. His lordship thought the effect and intention of the 'agreement was that Mr. Nash should be out of the matter, save that his name was to be used.

The judge was right in holding that, under the agreement, the running, provision of drivers and keeping of records, which were the obligations of the licensee, were to be done by Stevenson's and not by Mr. Nash. That was, as the judge had found, unlawful, and it followed that the agreement was not binding.

As the agreement could be carried out only in a fashion contrary to the Act, it could not be successfully sued upon. The decision of the judge was right and the appeal would be dismissed.

Tags

Locations: Liverpool

comments powered by Disqus