Luton Vans—Judge Queries Return Load Capabilities.
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Merchandise case, in which the British Transport Commission and 60 road hauliers are appealing against a decision of the Transport Tribunal granting an application by the Harris Lebus subsidiary to switch from Cto A-licence operation, was concluded in the Court of Appeal on Monday after an eight-day hearing. Lord Justice Sellers said the court would hear the next appeal in the list, the Arnold Transport (Rochester) case, which raised a similar point, before deciding the Merchandise case.
When the Merchandise case was continued last week, Lord Justice Devlin said the Licensing Authority had said that what Harris Lebus were attempting to do could be done by other traders and could wreck the whole licensing system.
In the judgment, he added, the Authority said the object of the Road and Rail Traffic Act was that private hauliers should not be allowed to compete with public hauliers. Traders who were C-licence holders could form transport subsidiaries and get A licences. ". Oversimplification." •
Mr. Maurice Lyell, Q.C., for Merchandise: "That is a complete oversimplification of the matter, because a person requiring transport is entitled to choose how he has his goods carried. If he creates a subsidiary company and asks for an A licence he takes the risk that there will be objectors. If he has a C licence there will be no objectors. There is nothing sinister about this application. It creates nothing different from any other application for an A licence."
Replying to questions from •Lord Justice Sellers, counsel said at least six of the appellants had not even got Luton vans and could not compete with Merchandise Transport. Quite a number were carrying agricultural goods which one would not think of putting in a furniture van.
Large Potential Lord Justice Sellers: " I should have thought that a large van that can carry furniture has a large potential for carrying many other things back to London."
Mr. Lyell said it would appear that the appellants were saying that because Harris Lebus were the parent company of Merchandise Transport they should not be taken into account as "persons requiring facilities for transport."
"My submission is that the two companies are entitled to be treated for the purposes of the licence application as entirely separate entities," said Mr. Lyell.
The only way that Harris Lebus came into the picture was that the Licensing Authority was bound to have regard to them as persons requiring facilities for transport. Lord Justice Devlin: "I think that is too narrow a view. Can you get round the law by saying 'I'm not carrying goods of another business because the other business is carried on by the parent company '? I should say that is just a dodge to get round the Act and there is discretion in the Licensing Authority to take that into account. An application that frustrates the Act is not in the public interest."
During submissions by Mr. C. R. Beddington, junior counsel for Mercharo disc Transport, Lord Justice Sellers said he had some sympathy with the Licensing Authority when the judgment stated there was "something less than genuine" in the desire of Harris Lebus Ltd., to employ Merchandise Transport to carry their goods. It seemed they had hit on something that was unusual.
Once the undertaking was given that only Harris Lebus' furniture would be carried on outward journeys it seemed that Merchandise Transport were entitled to a B licence and not an A licence. His lordship had a suspicion there was something that did not fit in with the Act, Counsel said his clients had put forward two patently genuine grounds for their application. There was the reorganization of their transport and a desire to carry return loads. The Licensing Authority had erred in considering the interests of the objectors outside the way it was permissible to consider them under the statute.
Importance Exaggerated The importance of the Luton vans had been greatly exaggerated. The vehicles would be used on return loads for middlelength journeys and would not be concentrated in one district. If they had, an objection might have been established.
It would be wrong for the court to put in the forefront of consideration the interests of other persons providing transport. They had had their opportunity and failed to take it.
During final submissions by Mr. E. S. Fay. Q.C., for the appellants, Lord Justice Sellers said it might he there was some half-way point between the parties. such as an undertaking not to pick up at a certain place where transport facilities were adequate.
Counsel said he was contending there should be no picking up anywhere. However. if on a future application Merchandise Transport gave more precise details of their intentions for return traffic, some concession might be made for picking up, where transport facilities were poor.
Lord Justice Sellers: "Would it be wrong to say no picking up anywhere '? Even a slight excess of transport is not a bad thing from a public point of view. It might be an advantage to have these vehicles returning to London, but I can understand the objection when these vans arc concentrated in one area and interfering with established traffic."
Mr. Fay said he was not contending that in no circumstances could Merchandise Transport or Harris Lebus be permitted to have return loads. He did, however, submit there was no material before the court to form a view as to where the public interest lay. This was because the application for an A licence had been approached in the wrong way. A device had been used to prove an outward need for traffic. The applicants then, in effect, said that the return traffic would take care of itself.
Lord Justice Sellers: "Do you say we have power to send the matter back to the Licensing Authority?"—"Certainly, in the same way that the Transport Tribunal have power."
(The .start of the Arnold Transport (Rochester) case is reported on Pqge 827.)
Mr. E. L. Cadwallader
WErecord with deep regret the death, at the age of 78, of Mr. Edmund Latham Cadwallader, a director of C.A.V., Ltd. I-le had been with the company for 50 years, having been joint managing director from 1933 until his retirement in 1953. Mr, Cadwallader, who was very well known in the toad transport industry, was engaged primarily on the sales side of C.A.V. His first task was selling electric lighting equipment to replace oil or acetylene lamps. He was for many years an active member of the Institute of Transport.
"Caddy, as he was affectionately known by his wide circle of friends in the industry, will be remembered in particular for his unfailing kindness and the help he gave so freely to all who sought his advice," stated C.A.V. after hearing the news of Mr. Cadwallader's death.
CROSVILLE FARES UP
BUS fares throughout North Wales and parts of Cheshire and Merseyside, with the exception of those charged for children, are to go up as from July 16, as a result of the granting of a blanket application by Crosville Motor Services, Ltd.. Chester, at a hearing of the North Western Traffic Commissioners at Llandudno.