AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

What the Lon; eel Judgments Really Mean

18th September 1964
Page 74
Page 75
Page 74, 18th September 1964 — What the Lon; eel Judgments Really Mean
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?

BY NORMAN H. 711-SIAN Triburtal endorset

culation scheme and sounds the death knell of specialized loads

NVI:lATEVER else may be read into the three (12-foolscap-page long) judgments of the Transport Tribunal in the long-length steel applications, this much stands out sharp and clear—the days of the "specialist" North Eastern load of long-length steel are over. And though the Tr:bunal, following their usual practice, did not in so many words accept the invitation of Counsel for Econofreight Transnort Ltd. and British Road Services, the judgments (reports of which were published in "The Commercial Motor" of September 4) represent an endorsement of the method whereby semi-trailers are interchanged as practised by the hauliers participating in Dorman Long's Cleveland articulation scheme.

The end of this monopoly—carried by the "Big Three" (Siddle C. Cook Ltd., Sunter Bros. Ltd., and A. Stevens and Co. (Haulage) Ltd.)—was inevitable, Inevitable because to quote the Tribunal in the Econofreight judgment: "In these days we cannot regard the carriage by road of steel over 30 ft. in length from plants, such as the Cleveland Works, that turn out mixed lengths in the normal course of business, as still being a matter for specialists." These are sentiments that have been expressed time and time again to the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. I. A, T. Hanlon, by Mr. T. H. Campbell-Wardlaw, the solicitor who acted for all the appellants.

It is surely common sense, now that it is conceded that steel is being produced in longer lengths, and now that vehicles can be operated at longer lengths under the recent amendments to the Construction and Use Regulations, to allow

Dorman Long's chosen haulage contractors to enter what was hitherto regarded as the exclusive preserves of the '' Big Three." As the Tribunal put it in the Econofreight judgment: " As the general length of steel products is tending to increase, it seem to us that the old specialization can no longer be maintained."

Suspension procedure was wrong

What else emerges from these marathon cases? Mr. Hanlon's apparent fondness for taking " revocation/suspension " action under the " non-fulfilmeni of statements of intention" section of the 1960 Act (Section 178) when they have been found to be operating vehicles al greater weights than specified in their licences, has been faulted by the Tribunal "Should a carrier use a trailer which it not authorized by his licence he will con. travene Section 164(l) and becomes liable

to the penalty prescribed by Section 164(2)" the Tribunal has ruled: It was incorrect to attempt to apply the provisions of Section 178(1)(d) when proceedings could be taken under Section 164(2), the Tribunal added. But, lest it be said that Econofreicht and Arthur Sanderson (Great Broughton) Ltd. had their vehicle suspensions quashed" because of a technical point, the Tribunal were careful to add a rider in both judgments that even if the procedure adopted by Mr. Hanlon had been appropriate, they (the Tribunal) would not regard the suspension as being justified.

Wishes of customer come first Another important matter postulated by the Tribunal in the anneals is the fact that customer preference is paramount. "While we have to take into consideration the interests of those of the respondents who carry long lengths of steel by road, we do not feel justified in allowing those interests to override the wishes of Dorman Long to have all the steel produced at the Cleveland Works carried by hauliers participating in their scheme."

Impracticable to reason why The Tribunal also give an important

direction about statements made by customer witnesses that their customers insist on the delivering of goods by road. They said: "If some of their (Dorman Long's) customers ask for their goods to be sent by road, it is not reasonable to expect Dorman Long to insist upon rail transport ".

Enlarging on this, the Tribunal then made a statement that I feel sure will be quoted many times in the future to Licensing Authorities in rail opposed cases—" An inquiry into the reason why some of Dorman Long's customers want their goods to be sent by road would be quite impracticable ".

Overall result What was the overall result of the appeals? Econofreight--the company responsible for running the Cleveland articulation scheme—and D. Tarren Ltd. (a subsidiary company) had their suspensions removed and applications to•substitute heavier (and longer) trailers granted. A. Sanderson (Great Broughton) Ltd. was equally successful.

Where the appellants did not succeed was in having additional units authorized —and H. L. Walker Ltd. appears to be the hardest hit in this respect. Their application was only to add longer vehicles and not to substitute them for shorter and lighter units in their fleet.

The Tribunal found in all the appeals 1hat its evidence for extra facilities was not strong enough. Here they agreed with Mr. Hanlon that a scheme devised 10 make a more economical use of transport ought not to require the licensing of additional vehicles.

This, obviously, is where those responsible for the Cleveland scheme will have to think again. Either they must think up even more economies in the operation of the trailers, or come back again before the Northern L.A. with even stronger evidence.

As for H. L. Walker Ltd„ they have hem given their cue by the Tribunal. Had they applied to substitute three longlength trailers for three normal ones. " we should have felt disposed to accede Ii, the application ", the Tribunal said. Presumably H. L. Walker Ltd. will he ,o applying, in due course.

A great deal of" overtime" has been put into the presentation of these appeals, and their importance can be gauged h■ the fact that the Tribunal considered them, and gave their judgments, during the summer vacation. The expenses of Econofreight Transport alone had run into four figures. It is a great pity that the successful appellants cannot he reimbursed for some of their legal costs.


comments powered by Disqus