Question "Intim idates" Objectors
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QBJ ECTOR S to applications for additional haulage vehicles are often asked whether they themselves propose to seek extra tonnage. The Appeal Tribunal is "inclined to the view that such a question in cross-examination is not generally desirable, because it might have a tendency to intimidate roadtransport operators in exercising their statutory right of objection. If applicants for licences or their representatives, nevertheless, desire to put the question. Licensing Authorities should not exclude it."
This observation was made by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal of Vectis Shipping Co., Ltd., against the refusal of the South-Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority to grant B licences for two vehicles (21 tons each). Costs totalling £18 17s, were awarded against the company.
The Tribunal reiterated the principle,
laid down in . other cases, that letters written in general terms and unsupported by the appearance of Witnesses, are of little value as evidence of need. Some of the letters produced by the, Vectis company, apart from being general in purport, were couched in "almost identical terms," suggesting that their form and contents had been suggested by the appellant.
Evidence given by the managing director of the Vectis Shipping Co., Ltd., was, said the Tribunal, "indeed very superficial" and sometimes contradictory. Although it was stated that the company's business had expanded, no figures to that effect were quoted. Moreover, maximum use had not been made of the pool of hauliers' vehicles.
The Tribunal's decision made it clear that convenience and financial advantage alone are not sufficient reasons for the granting of licences.