1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198 
Former Scottish TC clarifies "intriguing" involvement
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I WISH TO clarify my "intriguing" involvement in the case of Pallas Transport and Montana Freight Services (CM2 September).
On 28 July [was telephoned by Ian Anderson, an Edinburgh solicitor I had known when he was an adjudicator in the Scottish Parking Appeals Service. He asked me how a transport company would go about an appeal to the Court of Session.
He explained that the company was based in the north-east of England. but that the Transport Tribunal had heard their appeal against Mr Macartney's decision in Edinburgh. I was aware that the Tribunal sometimes does this for administrative reasons. Edinburgh being closer for the operator than London,but I immediately said that I believed the proper route for appeal by an English operator would be to the Court of Appeal in London.
Mr Anderson appeared to accept this but nevertheless asked again how a company would appeal to the Court of Session. I said that this would presumably be in accordance with that court's rules of procedure, of which I had no knowledge, but suggested that he should look up the published decisions in the two Thomas Muir appeals and the Coakley (PSV) appeal.
I repeated that! thought the correct route for English operators was to the Court of Appeal.
Our conversation lasted no more than five minutes, and I have had no further dealings with anyone involved in this case, except to e-mail the gist of my conversation with Mr Anderson to Mr Macartney.
In passing.I do find it strange that Lord MeEwan appears to have made his decision without seeking any contradictor to the motion.
Michael Betts Former Scottish and Senior Traffic Commissioner