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 
Transport Tribunal in London • Darlington Haulier's Appeal Allowed T tiE Transport
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Tribunal in London on :Tuesday allowed an appeal by J. Alderson, of Darlington, against a decision of the Northern Licensing Authority.
Giving the Tribunal's decision, the president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, Q.C., said that Mr. Alderson had applied to add to his A licence one articulated car transporter, to carry ears from the Austin factory at Longbridge, Birmingham, to Darlington for the main Austin distributors. in Darlington, the Motor Delivery lt: had been agreed by the respondent, the British Railways Board, that a prima facie case had been made out for the Licensing Authority and the only question was whether the respondent had made out its objection to the original application.
The onus was upon the respondent, said Mr. Squibb.
Mr. Squibb said that documentary evidence produced by British Railways Was not completely satisfactory but did show there was an excess of rail requirements. That, however, was not sufficient to discharge the onus of proof upon the railways.
He said that it appeared in these circumstances that the respondent had not succeeded in proving that if the application were granted there would be facilities in excess of requitement.
Success in Part AN appeal by the British Railways Board against a decision of the Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority in granting two vehicles on A licence to the Ham Wharfage Company Ltd., of Brentford, was partly allowed by the Tribunal.
Mi. R. M. Yorke, for British Railways, said the deputy Authority had granted two lorries and trailers to Ham Wharfige on condition that the company surrender a contract A licence for two similar vehicles which were used to :..arry goods for Mars Ltd.
Mr. G. D. Squibb, Q.C., giving the Tribunal's decision, said thatthe con:ract was entered into in January, 1961. 111 May, 1962, Ham Wharfage applied for i variation of its A licence to add the .WO vehicles and trailers to carry general pods within six miles of Brentford. Evidence had been given for the applimnk by its transport manager and by a 'epresentative of Mars Ltd. No evidence vas given by any other customer.
The Ham Wharfage Co. admitted there was sufficient to justify the grant of one vehicle for the carriage of Mars goods. This was admitted by British Railways. but they said it was not sufficient to justify the grant of two vehicle's.
Mr. Squibb said the reason given by the witness for the applicant was that the object of the application was to enable the company to avoid sub-contracting and to run its business in a more efficient and economical manner.
Mr. C. R. Beddington, for the applicant, had sought to qualify the answer given by its witness by inviting the Tribunal to consider figures showing the way in which the company's traffic had been built up over the period of the contract.
"We have come to the conclusion that the witness knew what he was talking about when he said the requireinents of Mars could be met by one vehicle instead of two," said Mr. Squibb.
They had come to the conclusion that the proper grant was one vehicle and to that extent the appeal would be allowed.
Dismissed, Withdrawn
A N appeal by Clifford Allford, of Lydney, Gloucestershire, against a decision of the Western deputy Licensing Authority was dismissed by the Tribunal because the appellant failed to appear.
Two other appeals, one by A. P. Marriot Ltd., against a decision of the West Midland deputy Licensing Authority and the other by the British Railways Board against a decision of the 'Western deputy Licensing Authority, were withdrawn and postponed, respectively.