AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Sutton Appeals

1st May 1964, Page 58
1st May 1964
Page 58
Page 58, 1st May 1964 — Sutton Appeals
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?

TWO appeals by Sutton and Son (St. Helens) Ltd., came before the Transport Tribunal in London on Tuesday, when judgment was reserved. The first —against a grant to A. S. Jones and Co. Ltd. was withdrawn. The second, against the N.W. deputy Authority's decision to grant six, instead of eight, dual-purpose vehicles for use with collapsible tanks was modified by agreement with the respondents. This appeal in two parts concerned quantum and normal user, the deputy Authority having granted the six vehicles with a bulk liquids user instead of a general goods user. In agreement with the respondents, who included British Railways, A. S. Jones and eight other hauliers, the second appeal was confined to normal user, and the respondents withdrew.

For Sutton and Son, Mr. J. Booth said that in 1962 five dual-purpose vehicles had been granted to the company with a " general goods" user; but when the company applied to add a further eight, the Authority indicated that he would refuse the application unless the user was amended to bulk liquids. This, Mr. Booth asserted, defeated the whole purpose of the vehicles.

His clients had made a qualified, interim amendment to the user, and they wanted the Tribunal to say that the Authority had been wrong to describe the user as bulk liquids.