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 
Permanent Base Principle Argued
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE interpretation of whether the phrase "permanent base or centre" includes a base that is only temporary was argued before the Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. C. J. Macdonald, on Tuesday during the bearing of an opposed application by a firm of air freight carriers to change their base.
For the applicants, W. Wright and Co. (Kew) Ltd., Mr. R. Storey said that the company had been acquired by the present directors in 1963. It then operated two vans under an A licence from a base at Richmond and its activities were mostly in tbe furniture removal field. Shortly after acquisition it had been found necessary to move from Richmond and a temporary base was found in Bath Road, Cranford, Middlesex. This. said Mr. Storey, was a very temporary base on a weekly tenancy. The company was in constant fear of having to move out, and it was not until April of this year that a permanent base was secured in the same road in Cranford, which had led to the application.
After Mr. B. F. Wootton, a director of the company, was cross-examined by Mr. F. V. Carroll and Mr. Roy Bowles (objecting)—who both asiced questions about an associate air freight company, T. and L Transport, under whose name a considerable amount of the applicant's work had been undertaken—Mr. Storey quoted the Transport Tribunal's judgment in the appeal of Arthur T. Booth (Manchester) Ltd. (1963 No. Z.122). He stressed the very temporary nature of the base which was the reason why no action had been taken to apply for a change of base sooner.
Adjourning the case, Mr. Macdonald said he wanted " a lot more information ".