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
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244 
No Decision on Fast Freights Appeal T HE Transport Tribunal reserved
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
its decision in London last week on an appeal by a King's Lynn haulier who has been handling the East Anglian transport of Campbell's Soups Ltd. on a contract licence. (The Commercial Motor, April 24.) Fast Freights (Road Haulage) Ltd. appealed against the decision of the Eastern deputy L.A. not to allow the company to transfer four vehicles from Contract to public A licence. There were five respondents to the appeal.
Mr. A. J. F. Wrottesley, for British Railways, submitted that the financial difficulties of the appellants were of thei own making. There was the strongest possible assumption on the evidence that Fast 'Freights had entered the contract ith ,Campbell's at a rate which was unjustifiably low.
Mr. H...podds, for three local• respondents; Sommerfeld and Thomas Ltd., S. NV: Mitchley and;34. G. Loades, said his clients-h.ad .sliewri that they had availabilit-y of transport to Meet .CampbelFs 'needs, The evidence of the local objectors was that they could.do a part of the work themselves and could 'arrange for the rest to be done: This was, in fact, the same as• the present 'situ.ationl For the Transport 'I-folding Co. Mr. R. M. Yorke said that if 'Mr.-_Lewington: managing director of the appellant company, had applied for a public licence in 1961 when he started the work for Campbell's, ne..would not have stood a chance, as the work was being done' Satisfactorily by other hauliers, 'Instead he had got a :contract licerice, had then found it uncomfortable, and within two years had applied for a public licerice.
Replying for the appellants, Mr. Jackson-Lipkin asked if it was right to force Fast Freights and Campbell's to continue with a contract that was running at a loss. The application was in the interests of Campbell's and Mr. Lewington, he said, and was also in the interests or the public, as it would prevent an increase in the price of soup.
A grant would not adversely affect any of the objectors, added Mr. JacksonLipk in.