Documentation On ticized by Tribunal
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
L'AULTY submission of appeal docu ments, the first to be submitted under the new rules of the Transport Tribunal, were heavily criticized by the President, Mr. G. D. Squibb, on Tuesday. Although 17 grounds of appeal had been listed, it was not clear how much weight attached to each submission, said the president. "It seems really incredible that the deputy Licensing Authority should have been wrong on 17 counts."
Miss E. Havers, counsel for the appellants, Ipswich Delivery Services Ltd., apologized, and promised to amend the form of appeal used for many years.
Mr. S. J. Green appeared for respondents, G. B. Beeston and others, and the Transport Holding Company (BRS Parcels Ltd., and Pickfords Ltd.) were represented by Mr. C. R. Kaile.
Miss Havers said the appeal was against the refusal by the Eastern deputy Licensing Authority of two A-licence applications, one for the addition of four small vans of under 6 tons unladen weight, the other for the addition of eight pantechnicons, against the surrender of existing A and B licences. The public inquiry had lasted three days, and some 150 documents had been submitted. The appeal was "of enormous importance" to her clients.
Continuing, counsel said the LA had warned the company in 1959 that A and B licence earnings should be separated, but Mr. Jackson-Lipkin, who appeared for the applicants in the lower court, did not like a certain "Form F ", showing monthly earnings under customer headings, used in the Eastern area, and he took the responsibility for advising the company not to use it. Miss Havers said she regarded the strictures of the deputy LA—that the company had "flagrantly disregarded" the Authority's wishes in relation to the use of Form F—as most unfair, since the accountants had gone to enormous trouble to provide proper figures. Indeed, she added, the chartered accountants involved gave evidence on the make-up of their figures.
Counsel said the deputy LA had concluded that some of the company's vehicles were 40 per cent to 50 per cent unemployed, and the firm was trying to expand in wider fields. The refusal of the application would not hurt anyone; moreover, the deputy LA had noted that Mr. D. L. Collis, the principal shareholder of the company, was not exclusively a haulier, being a partner in a clearing house, Gipping Transport Ltd., and he also ran a club, and a golf school. The clearing house had not ceased to operate, Miss Havers added.
Decision was reserved.