Flower Freight Appeal Heard
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE appeal by Flower Freight Co., .Ltd., against their conviction at Bow Streefin January of using a goods vehicle for the carriage of goods for hire or reward without the authority of carrier's licence, opened in the Queen's Bench Divisional CoUrt on Tuesday.
The crux of the case was whether the fitting of a roof. rack to a passengercarrying vehicle." adapts " it so that when used for carrying goods it becomes a goods vehicle needing a carrier's licence. The appeal arose out of a test case which the company, who carry imported fruit, flowers and vegetables, invited after having earlier been refused a B licence by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, mail:11y ,n the grounds that such use of minibuses with roof racks was illegal.
The magistrate found that the company had bought the vehicle concerned mainly for , the carriage of goods. It was a passenger-carrying vehicle fitted with a roof rack secured by clips which could be placed in position or removed in a few minutes. He held that the fixing of the rack was such an adaptaticin as to make the vehicle a goads vehicle when used for the carriage of goods for hire or reward. The company were convicted and fined £5.
In the appeal court on Tuesday Mr. M. H. Jackson-Linkin, for the appellants, contended that the mere attachment of a rack to a passenger vehicle, without any structural alterations, was not such an adaptation.
Mr. J. R Cumming-Bruce, for the respondents to the appeal, said it was not alteration of the structure of a vehicle which mattered but whether an alteration had taken place in the carrying capacity in relation to its use as a carrier of goods. The roof rack effected such an alteration and made the minibus ,a goods vehicle.
Mr. Cumming-Bruce had not concluded his submissions when the hearing was adjourned. The case was before Lord Parker (the Lord Chief Justice) who sat with Mr. Justice Gorman and Mr. Justice Salmon.