Sheffield Haulier Wins Tribunal Fight
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN appeal by Wilfred Harrison (Transport), Ltd., a Tinsley, Sheffield, haulage contractor, against the Yorkshire Licensing Authority's refusal to vary his A licence by the addition of four vehicles previously on contract A licence, was allowed by the Transport Tribunal in London last week.
The original hearing was adjourned in July, pending the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Arnold Transport (Rochester), Ltd., which involved similar principles. The court had since ruled in favour of Arnold's switch from a contract to an A licence.
The president of the Tribunal, Sir Hubert Ilull, said that in his view the facts of the appeal were indistinguishable in principle from those of the Arnold appeal.
Among the evidence taken into account was the inference that if a public A licence were granted, there would be to some extent abstraction, and other hauliers would have less work to do.
Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for the appellant, said the appellant's contract A licence was held in connection with the Tinsley Rolling Mills, Sheffield. At the public hearing of the application, the Licensing Authority said the case boiled down simply to the fact that the contract customers, Tinsley Mills, wanted to surrender the contract, and for the appellant to surrender his contract licence, so that they, the customers, might get the benefit of lower rates.
Later, the Licensing Authority said there was nothing binding the appellant to reduce his rates. He was, in effect, a transport manager for Tinsley Mills, and they were absolutely at his mercy unless prepared—and he gathered they were not—to employ a transport manager of their own.
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon added that the Licensing Authority found that the contract vehicles were fully employed with the work from Tinsley Mills, and that this work was going to continue to the same extent under the A licence. But the Licensing Authority considered that if the, application was granted there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to reduce his rates. It was this factor which quite clearly induced him to dismiss the application.