Eight Appeal Grounds in Fish Case G ROUNDS of appeal by
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Charles Alexander, the Aberdeen fish haulier, have now been made known. As already reported in The Commercial Motor, the Northern Scotland Licensing Authority granted permission to Mr. Alexander to continue his original service for the carriage of fish to Manchester. He was refused licences for the transport of fish or other goods from Aberdeen to Liverpool, Birmingham and London.
He was allowed to operate seven vehicles and a trailer to Manchester. Permission to use 16 other vehicles, representing businesses which he had bought since his original licence was granted, was refused.
Mr. Alexander, who submits eight grounds of appeal. states that the Authority failed to have regard to the e44 interests of the public generally, and, in particular, to his being the holder of an existing licence, and the extent to which he was authorized to use the goods vehicles under it. The appellant also claims that the Licensing Authority faleci. to have regard to his (Mr. Alexander's) previous conduct as a carrier and, in determining the number of vehicles to be authorized, to the need for providing for occasions when vehicles were withdrawn for overhaul and repair.
It is also maintained that the need for a continuance of the licence was proved.
Further grounds of appeal are that the notices of objection by a railway company were invalid; that the Licensing Authority, in endeavouring to obtain an undertaking from Mr. Alexander that vehicles would be used only in a Specified area, was acting ultra vires, and that the refusal to grant the application was inconsistent with the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, and was wrong in law.
The L.M.S. Railway Co. has now lodged an appeal against Mr. Alexander having the seven vehicles and trailer. The company alleges that there has been a material change in the circumstances relating to Mr. Alexander's business; that the evidence established that suitable facilities for the goods proposed to be carried by him would be in excess of requirements it he were allowed to retain the seven vehicles; and that, therefore, the Licensing Authority should have refused the application.