AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Scope of Ridgewell Decision

15th November 1935
Page 45
Page 45, 15th November 1935 — Scope of Ridgewell Decision
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A.a sitting of the North-Western r3.Deputy Licensing Authority, Messrs. Atkins and Sons, of Bootle, applied for A licences in respect of two vehicles.

Mr. James Atkins, 14, Langdale Street, Bootle, said that during the past three years his business had expanded to a large extent and, in order to meet the increased demand, he had been employing sub-contractors; but, ill many cases, they were' tinsatis. factory. Of his work, 85 per cent, was paid for on time rates and consisted largely of excavation. There were certain important aworks in view, for which lie would require the two

vehicles. He remarked that it was difficult to find sub-contractors with the particular types of vehicle required.

The railways objected on the ground that the applicant, from being a more or less local haulier, a few years ago, had launched out into long-distance haulage.

Sir William Hart, the Deputy Authority, pointed out that the applicant had reached a point where he was supplying so many hired vehicles that his customers might demand the use of his own machines on threat of removing their business from him.

Mr. Macaulay submitted that the firm had .shown reasonable expansion of their business. In the basic year, they did 80 per cent, of local work and 20 per cent. long-distance haulage. They had the nucleus of a long-distance connection and the, objectors had no right to say that they Should expand in only one direction.

Mr. Macaulay remarked, with regard to the Riclgeweli ruling, that the Appeal Tribunal decided that the quantum test was not to be applied in every case. The Ridgewell decision showed t' at a need must be proved by an applicant, hut no mention was made as to what that need must be. For that information they must go through various cases which had been dealt with later. If one' did put the present case on the basis of quantum, it appeared that the applicant was entitled to have much more than he was now seeking.

Decision was reserved.


comments powered by Disqus