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 
Turf business insignificant
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LANCASHIRE haulage firm's appeal against a refusal by the Northern LA to add one vehicle to its A licence was dismissed by the Transport Tribunal in London on Monday.
The appellants, B.M.W. and R. Shaw, executors of T. F. Shaw, of Lindale in Carttnel, were represented by Mr. R. M. Yorke. He said that the application had been for one vehicle and trailer on the normal user for the rest of the A-licence fleet, carrying cement, building materials, turf and chemicals in Yorkshire, Cumberland, London, South Wales and Scotland.
The late Mr. T. F. Shaw had had two vehicles on A licence and after his executors had taken over the business it had picked up considerably. An extra vehicle was needed for an increase in turf transport.
This was not attractive work and other hauliers did it only when they had nothing else. The appellants, however, were prepared to do this work for one contractor.
Mr. Yorke said the objectors had not even tried to make out a statutory objection; they were concerned about a conflict of interests. But it turned out that there was no area in which there was an overlap. Mr. J. Ullock, representing the respondents H. and L. Haulage Co. Ltd., of Workington, Cumberland, T. Brady and Son Ltd., and Furness Transport, both of Barrow-in-Furness, said undue stress had been placed on the turf business. It was an insignificant part of the application. Other transport, especially chemicals, was increasing. Brady was willing to transport turf.
The respondents were concerned about Shaw getting a further hold in the Whitehaven area, and interrupting their returnload work.
THC (BRS) who had objected to the application did not pursue the case before the Tribunal.
Tribunal President, Mr. G. D. Squibb, QC, said that the turf business was a minor part of the appellants' work, and this increase of one vehicle was not justified by the increase in the turf business.