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
199
200 
Eden upper bid fails solely on the evidence of need
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Asi application by Charles Eden Ltd., demolition and plant hire contractor of Worcester, for a new B licence for five tippers conditioned to carry builders materials and public works contractors' materials within 15 miles was rejected this week by deputy West Midland LA Mr. R. Hall, in a written decision.
Mr. Hall said he found that the prima facie case set up by the applicant, not in any event a strong one, was more than met by the evidence of availability tendered by the witnesses for six effective objectors, all of them local tipper operators.
He came to his decision solely on the evidence of need for the haulage facilities applied for and the availability of vehicles to meet that need. "That being so, it was, fortunately for me, not necessary to take into account either the previous character as a haulier of Mr. Charles Eden or some aspects of his business activities concerning which I entertained misgivings," said Mr. Hall.
The evidence was heard at four sittings between July and January.
The deputy LA goes on that Mr. Eden had been in business as demolition contractor, plant hire contractor, and sand and gravel merchant in Worcester for some years, but recently, for taxation purposes had taken the not. uncommon step of registering a limited company to take over the business he conducted in his personal capacity.
However, as far as the exercise of his dis cretion was concerned, Mr. Eden and Charles Eden Ltd. were one and the same entity.
Mr. Eden had told him that he had no intention of becoming a haulage contractor although he stated that builders he meets in the course of business frequently ask him to perform what he described as day work jobs for hire and reward. He wanted to undertake this work without breaking the law—as he had broken it on two previous occasions with the result that he had been prosecuted and convicted.
Mr. Hall adds: "Certain passages in the evidence seemed to point to other breaches of the Act on his part."