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 
Container Infringed Length Regulations
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
T ' Queen's Bench Divisional Court last week dismissed with costs an appal by Claude Hughes and Co. (Carlisle) Ltd. against conviction by magistrates at Lancaster of using a heavy goods cattle transporter exceeding 30 ft. in overall length on the M6 at Carnforth. The company had been fined £5.
The vehicle was being used to convey livestock carried in a container fixed to the vehicle's platform or flat by five bolts.
The container had sides and a roof of its own and was, in fact, removed from the vehicle on occasions when it was necessary to use the vehicle for carrying goods. With the container in position the overall length was 35 ft., but when it was removed the length was 30 ft.
The magistrates stated that in their conclusion although the container could be removed when necessary, when it was in position it formed part of the vehicle for the purpose of determining overall length.
Mr. Justice Ashworth said that in his opinion the justices were entitled to come to that conclusion.
"In my judgment, when the container had been fixed in position and the other equipment attached, the vehicle was then constructed in a manner involving excessive length, even though, without the -container, the vehicle would be in accordance with the regulations ".
• Lord Parker and Mr. Justice Lyell agreed.