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 
Parcels Carriers Appeal Dismissed
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ON Tuesday, the Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Messrs. Swift Parcel Delivery Services against the refusal of the South Wales Licensing Authority to vary an A licence to the extent of two vehicles in possession, and one to be acquired. The Great Western Railway Co. and the Western Welsh Omnibus Co., Ltd., objected. The application was granted for one vehicle in possession.
The Licensing Authority felt justified in authorizing the use of one additional vehicle by reason of Section 6 (2) (d) of the 1933 Act, but the margin for overhaul and repair of one vehicle in six, mentioned by the applicants, was, in his view, on the high side. The Authority considered that the appellants_had failed to bring themselves within the terms laid down by the Tribunal in the Ridgewell case.
It seems clear, states the Tribunal, that, in coming to his decision, the Authority took into consideration his conclusions on the original application. The Tribunal did not agree with the submission of counsel for the appellants that the Authority was not entitled to do this.
Whilst evidence showed that there had been an increase in the appellants' business, it did not prove that this expansion was due to the increase of the business of any of the appellants' customers, or to an improvement in the industries or trades in which those customers were engaged. In this case, the present appeal did not come within the terms of the Tribunal's Ridgewell and Hawker decisions. Costs of £18 7s. were given to the G.W.R.