The Arnold Transport Appeal
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Kindergarten Administration, Says Judge
THE Court of Appeal on Monday began the hearing of an appeal by the British Transport Commission and 19 road hauliers from a decision of the Transport Tribunal granting an application by Arnold Transport (Rochester), Ltd., for an A licence in respect of 40 vehicles of a total unladen weight of 2251 tons.
Arnold Transport said the vehicles were to be used exclusively for purposes of a contract between them and Gyproc Products, Ltd., of Gravesend.
The Transport Tribunal had reversed a decision of the South Eastern Licensing Authority and remitted to him the question of the number of vehicles to be authorized under A licence.
.Mr. E. S. Fay, Q.C., for the appellants, said the case bore a resemblance to the previous appeal concerning Merchandise Transport. However, instead of a switch from C to A licence it was a switch from contract-A. to A licence. It was not a case of parent and subsidiary company, but that of customer and haulier who had been associated for some time and were on terms of mutual trust.
For many years Arnold Transport had carried increasingly large amounts for Gyproc under contract-A licence. The present contract still had about four years to run. Under the contract a fleet of 26 vehicles was built up to 40. Under the application in question, Arnold Transport did not seek any substantial change in using outward traffic for Gyproc goods. The change they wanted was freedom to carry return loads.
The Licensing Authority found that the whole of the financial advantage would be to Arnold Transport and little or none to Gyproc, who would lose a firm contract with several years to run, They would be no better off and perhaps worse off, because the present contract would be dissolved once the A licence was granted.
' "Mysterious Benefit" Counsel said the only advantage to Gyproc would be some mysterious benefit • described as "stabilization."
Lord Justice Devlin said the appeal seemed an almost worse example than the preceding one where a matter of discretion had resolved into niggling over words in an Act of Parliament. and deciding whether they were satisfied. Lord Justice Sellers: This is really kindergarten administration. The public are not really concerned with whether Gyproc are mistaken as to the advantage they will get from this application.
Counsel said the real merits of the case were as to whether the surplus return traffic provided by Arnold's was in the public interest. Evidence was that Arnold's receive 92 per cent. of their yearly gross revenue from Gyprocf297,792.
The application was, in effect, one to carry goods from all over Southern England into Rochester, whereas it had been treated as an application for the outward carriage of Gyproc goods. This was looking at the matter from the wrong end and disregarding the statute.
"This decision is opening a new door to everyone on contract-A licence andthe effect must be to transfer traffic from the professional hauliers to persons who are fortunate enough to have a direct association with some big customer. The big customer is virtually able to put these people into the haulage industry with a considerable competitive interest over the professional haulier," said Mr. Fay.
Lord Justice Devlin said if the Tribunal were satisfied there was a genuine need for the application, the licence had to go through. It could not be right to refuse because there might be a surplus capacity on the return load.