Users and Undertakings Should be Shown on Licence
Page 42
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ASHORT time ago an appeal was heard before the Tribunal by a Northern area haulage company which had had an A licence revoked by the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, because longlength vehicles had been used in breach of an undertaking given that the vehicles operated by the company would not be greater than the standard overall length of 35 ft. The Tribunal was told that the Authority had taken this drastic action because, having obtained a licence for one purpose, the haulier had used it for another. ie licence holder was, in fact, a ed company—General Haulage Co. -nington) Ltd.—and, when the licence been varied in April, 1961, and the rtaking given, the shares were held Mr. J. W. Capstaff and his wife. shares, the Tribunal was told, were [lased by a Mr. Tulip later in that who knew nothing about the rtaking.
e Tribunal, giving judgment, )ted that Mr. Tulip had acted innoy, albeit carelessly, and imposed a Ity of Six months' suspension which d go some way towards depriving company of the fruits which had earned by operating in breach of indertaking.
the above-quoted case, the legal I had remained unchanged throughand the Tribunal, in its decision, ated that although the control of company had changed, the underg given by the previous " con" of the company was binding on Tulip.
at is the position, one wonders, regard to " personal " licences. If Tribunal held that an undertaking personally by the vendor of a ess was binding on the purchaser, the purchaser had not been told by endor of any undertaking restricting use of vehicles to be operated the licence, then the purchaser have an undoubted right in damin an action brought in the High t against the vendor. Such a case is,
in fact, pending at the moment, where the purchaser of a business maintained that the vendor had said that the vehicles were under a "General goods, Great Britain" user, and he discovered, when he applied for transfer of the licence after the purchase, that they were on a very limited user.
Of course, misunderstandings about normal user, and any undertakings given with respect to the use of vehicles specified on a licence, would be prevented if such restrictions and undertakings were typed on the face of the licence. Why cannot this be done? However, the simple fact remains that it is not done and I hope that the incidents described above will serve as a warning to wouldbe purchasers of haulage businesses to insist on being given, in writing, the precise conditions under which vehicles to be purchased are currently operating.