AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Low-loader Appeals Start A PPEALS by Pickfords Ltd. and other low-loader

18th December 1964
Page 31
Page 31, 18th December 1964 — Low-loader Appeals Start A PPEALS by Pickfords Ltd. and other low-loader
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

operators against the grant of three 11I-ton, articulated/ independent, low-loader trailers to Bakers Transport (Southampton) Ltd., and a counter appeal by Bakers against the South Eastern deputy Licensing Authority's refusal to allow them to operate six trailers, started before the Transport Tribunal on Tuesday.

Before the hearing began, the Tribunal allowed a motion made by Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for Bakers, admitting certain additional photographic evidence. Because of this, Pickfords were allowed to call further expert evidence from Mr. W. Partington, assistant heavy haulage manager.

Motions to call additional expert evidence on behalf of Hill and Sons (Bailey and Denmead) Ltd. and Bakers were refused, Mr. Jaekson-Lipkin. opening Bakers' appeal, said that his client was the ntain carrier of cable for Pirelli General Cable Works, who were now producing drums weighing 25 tons. Bakers had had experience of their lighter trailers breaking up and contended that they needed heavier trailers that could be operated with forecarriages for field work. Pickfords, at the hearing, had refuted this but, continued Mr. Jackson-Lipkin, only eight days after the decision had been given, two Pickfords vehicles were photographed carrying cable using the same methods which they had said were unnecessary at the public inquiry.

Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said that Bakers' appeal was threefold: as regards quantum; the deputy L.A. had not considered the reasonably ascertainable Future need of the new Pirelli factory; and by insisting on the substitution of the existing trailers he had placed Bakers in an impossible position with regard to their -other clients.

At the time of going to press. the appeal was continuing.


comments powered by Disqus