Fails in Appeal, but Retains Vehicles !
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Curious Position Arises from Appeal Against Variation After Original Licence Has Expired
AN extraordinary position has arisen as the result of appeals by the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway Companies against the East Midland Licensing Authority's decision to vary an A licence held by Mr. B. L. Lyner, of Leicester.
The facts arc that in April, 1936, Mr. • Lyner applied for a variation of his licence by the addition of a 2i-ton vehicle. The application was opposed by the railways and certain hauliers, and was refused. In December, 1936, he made another similar application, which was eventually granted. Against this decision the railways appealed.
While proceedings on the second variation application were pending, Mr. Lyner applied for a renewal of his A licence for the three vehicles then authorized.
Under Wrong Heading?
Notice of the application was published in "Applications and Decisions" under the heading of "Continuation Without Modification," and was stated to be subject to the Licensing Authority's decision on the variation case. The renewal application was not opposed, and was granted, but for four vehicles and not three. The vehicles authorized were the original three and an extra machine.
n40 The position on the date when the appeals were heard was, therefore, that the original licence had expired, assuming that the grant of the renewal licence was valid. Mr. N. R. FoxAndrews, for Mr. Lyner, submitted that the Tribunal should use a discretion not to hear the appeals. This objection was overruled, Under the Tribunal's judgment, issued on Wednesday, the appeals are allowed, and the Licensing Authority's decision on the second variation application set aside. The Order provides that the record of the decision shall be deleted from "Applications and Decisions." Costs of 421 in favour of the L.N.E. Railway Co. have been awarded.
The position now seems to be that, although the variation application has been overruled, Mr. Lyner can still run four vehicles, because he was authorized to do so by the grant of the renewal application, and against
°which there has been no appeal. It appears that only an appeal to the High Court can alter this anomalous situation.
The Tribunal's decision states that Mr. Lyner originally dealt mainly with local work, but, later, took over a longdistance service from Leicester to Plymouth.
The two principal issues involved were : (1) Was need proved for an extra vehicle for the Leicester-Plymouth service? (2) If not, was need proved for an extra vehicle for local work?
Restriction on Principle?
The Tribunal holds that additional tonnage for the long-distance service is unnecessary. It agrees, however, that Mr. Lyner has _not sufficient vehicles for all the local work which is offered to him, hut declares that an extra vehicle is not justified. The shortage of transport is stated to be due entirely to Mr. Lyner's operation of the Plymouth service,
A common-sense construction to place upon this decision seems to be that,. if an operator wishes to branch out into a new sphere of activity, he must sacrifice some of his existing business; he will not be allowed to extend in both directions,