Tribunal turns down appeal
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SIMONSTONE TRANSPORT LTD., of Burnley, Lancs., had its appeal against the decision of the North Western deputy Licensing Authority refusing its application to vary its A-licence terms dismissed by the Transport Tribunal in London on Friday.
The Tribunal announced that it would give its reasons for dismissing the appeal in writing later.
Simonstone Transport Ltd. applied in May to add four vehicles to the five company vehicles already operating on an A licence. The company offered to surrender its Contract A licence in respect of these four vehicles if granted the licence.
The contract on which the four vehicles had been engaged had been ended and the contract work had ceased in February of this year.
The applicants called evidence from existing customers which it said supported its claim that there would be work available for the additional vehicles on the A licence.
Respondents at the appeal were British Railways Board, Transport Holding Company, Fearings Transport Ltd., and Jack Bradley (Accrington) Ltd., who held that the applicants had not made out a case which justified the additional vehicles on the A licence.
Mr. K. Schiemann, for Simonstone, said one of the issues the tribunal had to decide was whether the applicant's past conduct justified punishment in the form of a rejection of its application.
Mr. Schiemann said he was referring to an incident in 1963 concerning the company's Burnley contract. At that time Simonstone had a Contract A licence for four vehicle working for the Burnley Aircraft Co. Whe this company went out of business as a aircraft company Simonstone surrendere its Contract A licence for four vehicles an was granted two vehicles on an open licence in substitution.
At that time the applicant gave the deput Licensing Authority the usual undertakin that he would not take out further Contra( A licences with the Burnley company.
In February, 1964, five months after givin this undertaking, continued Mr. Schiemanr a new Contract A licence for two vehicle was taken out in respect of Burnley Engineei ing, the new name of Burnley Aircraft and transport company called Stoke Fortt This firm was not the firm which had give the undertaking, "but it was certainly th applicant's family company", said M Schiemann.
At a subsequent hearing before the Nort Western Authority this matter was full ventilated but no disciplinary or other actio was taken. Simonstone's application ion simply refused.
The applicant's explanation for his actin was an innocent one. The Burnley compan found it had more work available for Simoi stone and suggested that Simonstone shoal use two more vehicles on a new contra( licence.
"The applicant is terribly anxious that ne: time he comes up with an application he do( not have all this raked over again", said M Schiemann. "It is now time for this matt to be dropped."