Important Rulings
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Expected
AMONO the appeals heard by the Transport Tribunal in London last week were two upon the outcome of which, as Sir ir Hubert Hull, president, implicitly acknowledged, the normal-user terms of many hauliers will depend in the future. G. Duncan Jewell, of The Commercial Motor, referred last week to the need for uniformity among Licensing Authorities on this question.
Roberts and Pike Decisions Deferred
nEFERRING decisions on two appeals concerning breaches of
normal user, Sir Hubert said that the Tribunal had reason to think that they were considered important by persons other than those directly concerned.
The British Transport Commission appealed against grants by the Yorkshire Licensing Authority to T. Roberts (Haulage Contractors), Ltd., and Mr. H. Pike. In each case Mr. J. R. C. SamuelGibbon appeared for the B.T.C., whilst the respondents, who were backed by the Road Haulage Association, were represented by Mr. W. A. Goss.
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said that Roberts had been allowed to add to an existing A licence a vehicle of 3+ tons to carry mainly steel castings, foundry sand and building materials normally in Yorks, Lincs, the Midlands and the north-east. The vehicle had previously been restricted to a 10-mile radius of Renishaw. .
Roberts had taken over the licence in 1955 and applied for normal-user terms the same as had existed before. The transfer, in substance and intention, alleged Mr. Samuel-Gibbon, was for the acquisition of a licence rather than the goodwill of the business to which the vehicle belonged.
Miners' Coal He continued that the respondents knew that the former owners used the vehicle to deliver miners' coal and carry for Renishaw ironworks. The coal delivery finished and work for the ironworks lasted for about a year.
Since then the vehicle had been running to a number of big cities, including London, Glasgow and Liverpool.
Mr. Goss submitted that ignorance of the law was regarded as a mitigating factor. After the respondents took over the licence, the coal work was lost, but their behaviour was entirely proper for 15 months. Then the ironworks stopped offering traffic. and Messrs. Samuel Osborne asked his clients if they would work for them. This was done, and full disclosures were made to the Authority.
Proper discretion had been exercised by the Authority, claimed Mr. Goss. The appellants would probably have carried on correctly if the ironworks contract had not been lost. In the Pike appeal, Mr. Samuel-Gibbon stated that the B.T.C. opposed an extension of radius of from 25-80 miles. In July, 1953, the licence concerned was held by someone else for work within 25 miles of Sheffield. There had been a take-over application in 1954, and another, by Mr. Pike, in 1957.
Mr. Goss explained that the person from whom the respondent had obtained the licence had operated beyond 25 miles without criticism. Mr. Pike thought that an A licence was flexible. No haulier had opposed the increase in radius, whilst the railways had chosen not to give evidence.
"Complete Indecision"
AN admission that his mind was in a state of "complete indecision" was made by Sir Hubert when the Tribunal deferred judgment on an appeal by the British Transport Commission against a decision of the Western Licensing Authority.
Mid-Cornwall Transport had been granted an A licence for a vehicle of 31 tons with a normal user for mainly agricultural produce and requisites, china clay and sugar, between Cornwall and London and other named destinations. Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for the B.T.C., said that the only customer evidence related to broccoli, cabbage and potatoes. These were seasonal traffics. An A licence was not appropriate because the applicants .were timber dealers, and they should have sought a B licence.
For the respondents, Mr. C. R. Beddington explained that the present head of the business, Mr. R. G. Morcom. had started haulage after taking over timber dealing from his father. Customers were pleased with his services and wanted him to continue them. It was not enough for the B.T.C. to say that customers could go to the railways or British Road Services.
Sir Hubert stated that Mr. Morcom would be well advised to consider as soon as possible whether his A licence covered the transport of timber. The president said that he was " swayed from side to side" on this point, although the Tribunal, provisionally, considered that the grant was narrowly justified by evidence.
Evidence Was Unspecific
MO grant could be made when evil111 dence was unspecific, Sir Hubert indicated to Mr. P. Laffey, who had been refused a B licence for two vehicles by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority.
Mr. H. Jones, for the appellant, said that his client now sought permission to operate only one vehicle. This had been obtained before the application had been lodged, and Mr. Laffey was paying £32 8s. a month hire-purchase instalments.
The appellant wished to carry building and road-making materials, plant, soil, rubbish and sewer-excavation disposal material for Hall and Co., Ltd., within 20 miles of Ilford. Mr. Jones explained that Hall found it difficult to get hauliers to do this kind of work. He could not understand why Childs and Lock, Ltd., should oppose Mr. Laffey.
Childs and Lock, respondents, were not called.
Settling the Penalty IF the Tribunal had been in the position of the West Midland Licensing Authority and had had to decide how to penalize A. and E. Morris, Ltd., for infringing their normal user, four vehicles would have been suspended for two months.
The Authority, however, had suspended two vehicles. Therefore these should remain off the road for four months, until the end of October.
This was how the Tribunal settled the company's appeal against the Authority's action. They added that when the period of suspension ended, the company should be granted an A licence for four vehicles with a normal user as applied for.
Appellants Fail to Appear
AFTER the appellants had failed to appear, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of Mr. E. B. Hobson and Mr. F. Bullimore, both of which were against decisions of the Eastern Licensing Authority. The respondent in each case, Mr. W. J. Crowe, was represented.
An appeal by Messrs. E. E. Tivey and E. Tarbuck against a decision of the West Midland Licensing Authority was also dismissed. The appellants had written to say that they could not attend.