Caught in Contract-licence Trap T HE Appeal Tribunal, at Carlisle, last
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
week, dismissed, with costs, an appeal by Mr. J. A. Pratt, 31, Greenhill, Brampton, against the 'refusal of the Northern Licensing Authority to vary an A licence. United Automobile Services, Ltd., and the L.N.E. Railway Co. responded.
The appellant claimed, inter alia, that ample evidence was produced to justify the transfer of his vehicles from contract A licences to public A licences; that the application -was not similar insubstance to one which was refused in 1995, and that the Authority's decision acted harshly against hith.
• It was stated that the appellant started business as a haulier in March, 1934. ' He -ea:irked chiefly for BOrder Counties Wool Sales, Ltd.,
and for West Cumberland Farmers, Ltd., Whitehaven.
The Authority had observed that
Mr. Pratt's main object seemed to be to transfer to his public A licence the vehicles which he at present held under contract A licences, in order that he could operate them more economically and use them for return loads. It was his expressed desire to reduce operating costs, but this was not sufficient ground for granting the variation.
Mr. P. Kershaw; for the respondents, pointed out that the appellant proposed to provide facilities" not only for return loads, but for carrying goods to and from places as far apart as Glasgow and Liverpool. Mr. Rowand Harker, K.C., chairman, asked where this process might end. Mr. Pratt might take wool to Huddersfield to be dressed, then to Kidderminster to make carpets, but could he be permitted to carry the carpets from Kidderminster to warehouses in London and then, say, to Southampton for shipment? •