1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
Appeal Decisions Not Used
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By their failure to make available in
published form, at frequent intervals, their most recent decisions, the Transport Tribunal are responsible for the farcical position_ which has arisen of stated "licensing principles" being ignored, writes a special correspondent.
One of the reasons for this situation is that verbatim reports are not available to those not concerned in a particular case, and appeal decisions circulated by the Tribunal to the Press are incomplete.
Strong objection has been taken by Road Haulage Association solicitors to the use of decisions available to the British Transport Commission by virtue of their appearance as objectors in most major cases, because they are not available to everyone.
A recent case before the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. I. R. Lindsay, at Liverpool, was adjourned to enable the applicant's solicitor to study the Williams Bros. appeal, after he had complained of being prejudiced by its use by the Commission, as objectors.
As a consequence, it appears to have become established practice by B.T.C. representatives not to use recent decisions.
The latest issue of "Traffic Cases" in April brings decisions only up to early 1956, and the previous issue was 18 months ago.
The result of this combination of circumstances is that the recent Tuffnells appeal (The Commercial Motor, May 3) in which the Tribunal said they did not think it was desirable, in that case or any other, to give specific judgment for vehicles for maintenance purposes, is being ignored.
It appears that the Tribunal consider that applications for additional vehicles only for maintenance purposes are misconceived. Nevertheless, in a recent Manchester case, an applicant who was previously refused a B licence for a. "maintenance" vehicle for his A licence fleet was granted an A licence for the same purpose after the B.T.C. had failed to press their objection..
Again, as recently as June 4, when objecting to a similar application for a new B licence, the Commission's solicitors made no use of the Tuffnell • decision, although in this instance a grant was refused.